Commentary: Just Where Are Students Supposed to Live?

Share:

UCD Long Range Development Plan

In reading an op-ed on the proposed Trackside development, legitimate concerns are raised regarding the impacts on nearby residents both in terms of loss of view and blocking the sun, as well as the daily trips in and out of the alleyway.

However, one raised point seemed questionable at best, “Due to the proposal’s proximity to restaurants and bars and due to the lack of downtown and on-campus student housing, this proposed multi-story apartment building next to the railroad tracks is more likely to become, in effect, another ‘dorm’ for UC Davis students.”

There are many legitimate concerns that the adjacent neighborhood has about the project, which they will have to work through with the applicants and the city, but the project becoming, in effect, a dormitory for students is not one of them.

When the Vanguard met with project representatives Kemble Pope and Steve Greenfield in July, they made it clear that this project will not become a mini-dorm situation. They see it as targeting empty nesters that live in Davis, or young professionals coming to the university or to work at one of the startups or high-tech companies, who want a more urban lifestyle.

A few of the units, they explained, would target executive residences and possibly visiting professors here for a year or two, who just want to live in Davis for a short time.

They explained that, while they cannot prevent students from living there, there are ways to make it less likely, such as requiring that all residents to pass a credit history test in order to live there. That will prevent wealthy parents from being able to rent the unit for their child to live there, since the residents themselves would have to pass the credit check.

On the other hand, while it is clear that the intentions of the developers is to avoid the site becoming a mini-dorm (and it appears at this time that we are talking about under 50 units), given that Davis is a college town – why is it wrong to provide student housing?

One of the biggest problems we face as a community is the low vacancy rate. But the other problem is the opposition to apartment projects in the city.

The Vanguard has questioned whether the city should allow the current EMQ FamiliesFirst facility to fall out of current usage due to the likely future need for residential treatment in light of Propostion 47. But nearby residents are concerned that the proposed Sterling Apartments, a five-story, 270-unit project, is too big for the existing site.

The current proposal at Nishi calls for roughly 600 units that could go to student housing. Residents and the council are concerned about access issues on that. Sources have told the Vanguard that densities are unlikely to be increased given the costs of going higher in terms of floor level and open space considerations.

Many believe that the university is a large part of the problem. In October, Bob Segar, UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor for Campus Planning and Community Resources, in his report to council admitted that “even in our highest on-campus housing scenario, we do not anticipate being able to house every new student.”

Bob Segar did commit to the notion that they would house all first-year students who want to be housed, in the heart of campus. He said, “Common to all scenarios, housing all first-year students inside the heart of campus.”

Mr. Segar noted that the West Village project “has been kind of stalled with the economic downturn.” He said that the project is going to re-start with the plan “to house a very similar number of people to the original plan on a smaller footprint.”

But, as Eileen Samitz points out, the bottom line is that, as the university commits to expanding the size of their enrollment, they have not committed to provide the housing for the increased number of students.

She writes, “Adding yet another 5,000 students, many of which will be from outside of the state and outside of the country (for higher tuition fees) will clearly need housing, yet the University has been silent on where these students are to live.”

She argues, “It is unfair to our community and particularly unfair to UCD students, for whom the University is not providing the needed dedicated, long term affordable housing on campus, which would also reduce commuting impacts.”

Students have become a proverbial beach ball punted back and forth from the university to the city to the neighborhoods.

Clearly, Ms. Samitz has a point when she cites language that was adopted by the city council in an MOU with UC Davis to make “all efforts to provide the UC system wide goal of 42% student housing. The housing should consist primarily of core-campus, high-density student apartments that are able to accommodate individual and family student-households for the average term of student population at UC Davis.”

It seems to me that Nishi is an ideal location as it is walking distance from campus, biking distance from downtown, and, if we eliminate or greatly reduce the amount of parking on the site, we can minimize the impact on Richards Boulevard.

We need to figure out a way for Nishi to at least provide 2000 to 3000 students with a place to live.

At the same time, residents in Davis need to understand that this is a college town and that means, somehow, we need to provide appropriate living spaces for students. I don’t wish to minimize the concerns of the residents at Rancho Yolo, but perhaps we can take steps to reduce the number of parking places for residents at Sterling to encourage students to hop on the bus or bike rather than drive to campus.

The bottom line, though, is we cannot have a college town that does not have places for students to live either on campus or in town – and that, in my view, is on all of us.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

61 thoughts on “Commentary: Just Where Are Students Supposed to Live?”

  1. Tia Will

    When the Vanguard met with project representatives Kemble Pope and Steve Greenfield in July, they made it clear that this project will not become a mini-dorm situation. They see it as targeting empty nesters that live in Davis or young professionals coming to the university or to work at one of the startups or high tech companies, who want a more urban lifestyle.

    They explained while they cannot prevent students from living there …”

    On the other hand, while it is clear that the intentions of the developers is to avoid the site becoming a mini-dorm (and it appears at this time, we are talking about under 50 units), given that Davis is a college town – why is wrong to provide student housing?

    DISCLAIMER

    I am one of the more visible opponents to the Trackside project as currently proposed. The issue of who lives in the Trackside project is not an objection of mine although it might be for some of my neighbors. However, I would like to share my thinking on this aspect of the project emphasizing that in this, I speak only for myself, not the Vanguard, not OEDNA, not even my own partner.

    We do have a lack of housing in Davis. We especially lack affordable housing. I will agree that we also lack housing for those who are affluent and yet simply cannot find housing to their liking in the downtown or near downtown. I can empathize with this latter group since I was a part of that group and had watched the real estate availability in this area for several years before the bungalow I eventually purchased became available.

    However, I believe that as a community we are obligated to help those in actual need. We do not have an obligation to help those who have wants which they have the money to fulfill if they are either patient in waiting for what they want or flexible enough to settle for something that will satisfy them, but which may not be “perfect” in their eyes. So what is the “help” that is being asked of the community for this project intended to house largely the already affluent while making money for a small group of investors and the developers ?  They are asking to go out side the design guidelines for our neighborhood in order to build to their desired specifications as a “planned development”.

    I would have less problem ( and would not be tabling and otherwise speaking out so strongly) if this “planned development” were for the purposes of housing those with actual need ( students or low income folks). However, since this is intended as luxury housing for those with “wants” but whom are fully capable of providing for their own “needs” I see no need to step outside current recommendations and guidelines specifically for their benefit, but at the cost to others already residing in the neighborhood who have all along been operating within the guidelines for this neighborhood in their restoration efforts. My ask to the developers had there been any pre-project discussion would have been to please stay within the established guidelines of size and character of billing for our transitional neighborhood. Now that is, of course, just a “want” and they have no obligation at all to honor my request….but then the city has no obligation to suspend the current guidelines to honor their request either. I am simply asking that if we want to redesign this entire area, fair enough….. as a community, let’s redesign those guidelines rather than pick them apart project by project with whomever has enough pull emerging the “winner”.

    1. Anon

      Tia Will: “I am simply asking that if we want to redesign this entire area, fair enough….. as a community, let’s redesign those guidelines rather than pick them apart project by project with whomever has enough pull emerging the “winner”.”

      Well said.  The city needs to stop development by “zoning variance”.

      1. CalAg

        Exactly. If it’s okay to up-zone commercial to residential, then there are at least 10-20 sites around town that would be profitable to redevelop. Is that okay with the CC?

        1. Robb Davis

          In our goal setting mini-retreat on Tuesday the CC agreed to begin a General Plan update this year. It will most certainly, among other things, deal with land use issues.

        2. hpierce

          Robb… there is both opportunity and danger in a complete GP revision… in a “citizens” based revision, particularly… I’ll elaborate, later, directly… you know who I am.

    2. AJ Sikes

      Absolutely agree, Tia. Very well said. Arguments in favor of Trackside like to equate “addressing the low vacancy rate” with “providing luxury living scenarios near the core”. That is a patently false equation.

  2. Davis Progressive

    the main point that david seems to be making is not about trackside, but rather about the fact that we have a grave need for student housing, and the neighbors are opposed to it in every circumstance, there are problems with nishi, and the university is not committed to a solution even as they contribute to the problem.

  3. CalAg

    “even in our highest on-campus housing scenario, we do not anticipate being able to house every new student.” @ Bob Segar

    So change the %$!#&@ scenarios. 

    Seriously, I don’t understand why Greenwald won’t call BS on this nonsense.

    Developable land is not a gating factor for UCD. It is for the City of Davis. The university doesn’t want to build adequate housing for it’s student population because the rubes in the City leadership will try and do it for them. And they won’t even do the City the courtesy of jointly planning for their huge increases in enrollment.

    Katehi could make a policy decision tomorrow that UCD is going to house 100% of the students that want on-campus housing.

    For all you taxpayers out there … student housing and surface water. Any other basic UCD infrastructure you would like to subsidize??

    1. Davis Progressive

      “Seriously, I don’t understand why Greenwald won’t call BS on this nonsense.”

      what do you mean?  he is calling bs on this – he’s just being a little more polite about it.

        1. Davis Progressive

          no he’s not: “The bottom line, though, is we cannot have a college town that does not have places for students to live either on campus or in town – and that, in my view, is on all of us.”  he also agrees with eileen where she cited the need for the university to go up to 42%, which would be a near 50 increase.

        2. CalAg

          See my 9:26 post. Just because Greenwald says something, that doesn’t make it a fact.

          A more than reasonable proportion of the Davis housing stock is rental.

          In fact, the numbers argue (if you sincerely want to make evidence-based decisions), that we need to build owner-occupied housing (more kids for the schools, more dollars for the retailers, more property taxes for the general fund). The proportion of our housing stock that is occupied by students is seriously out-of-balance.

    2. Matt Williams

      This isn’t a simple problem that can be unilaterally solved by direct manipulations of the supply of housing, which is what CalAg is passionately, consistently and effectively arguing for.  What a supply-side solution does not address is how the students will manifest their housing desires on the demand side of the supply/demand equation.

      The effects of the vagaries associated with the demand-side are playing out in the extension of the build-out schedule for West Village. My indirect, second-hand understanding of why the build-out schedule has slipped is that there simply isn’t as much housing demand as was originally forcasted.

      Why is that the case?  We certainly know that there is an overall student housing demand.  The answer is simple.  Given a choice (and they clearly have a choice) a substantial portion of UCD students would rather live off campus rather than on campus.  That is especially true of non-Freshman students.  The ones I have talked to “want to exercise their freedom” and as such don’t want to double down their official, contractual relationships with UCD.  They have no choice with respect to their official academic contractual relationships with UCD. They do have a choice with respect to their housing relationships with UCD.

      1. CalAg

        The delayed build-out schedule has nothing to do with student demand. It has to do with the project pro forma, and problems finding a developer willing to build the next phase (which was to include an ill-conceived faculty/staff housing cluster – overly expensive homes with a cap on equity).

        Regarding the student housing, it’s in a bad location and too expensive.

      2. Topcat

        Given a choice… a substantial portion of UCD students would rather live off campus rather than on campus.  That is especially true of non-Freshman students.  The ones I have talked to “want to exercise their freedom” and as such don’t want to double down their official, contractual relationships with UCD.

        I wonder if it might make sense for the University to lease the land on a long term basis to a private manager to build and operate apartments.  I would envision the arrangement as similar to the Hyatt Place hotel which is on University property.  Then the students would not feel so much like they are within the University’s sphere of influence.

        Perhaps there is some legal reason this can’t be done that I am not aware of.

    3. Robb Davis

      Rubes in the City leadership…

      Your characterization of this issue is simplistic–why don’t you enlighten us about how we might compel the University to bend to our collective will.  I am all ears. In addition your name calling behind the veil of anonymity is childish and not helpful to the conversation.  To suggest there is no will to take on these complex issues or that we are unwilling (or unable to find the fortitude) to have the difficult conversations with University leadership about them is false.

      Like it or not, as it concerns student housing, the realm of realpolitik rules in this town.  More SFRs are converted to dorms and more students keep coming. Refusing to act (by promoting the construction of more MFRs in the city) because the University fails to do what we want it to do amounts to cutting off our collective nose to spite our face.  Something that many seem willing to do.  I am not among them and made that clear when I ran for office.

      1. hpierce

        Robb … UCD bought several MFR’s, taking the properties off the tax rolls, and demolished one of them (Wake Forest location?).  No, don’t have answers, but UCD is a big part of the problem, and it seems they don’t give a damn.

      2. Matt Williams

        Robb Davis said . . . “Your characterization of this issue is simplistic–why don’t you enlighten us about how we might compel the University to bend to our collective will.  I am all ears.”

        CalAg and I agree approximately 98% on the problems that the overabundant demand from UCD students causes in our fair city.  The 2% where she/he and I disagree has to do with Robb’s comment above, and especially the bolded part.  To torture a metaphor, our attempts to compel the University to do our bidding is like a boxing match where we are Sugar Ray Leonard and UCD is Muhammad Ali.

        For those of you who don’t like sports metaphors, and would prefer one from a movie, this one comes to mind. Bonus points for the first person who can name the movie.

        Evelyn Couch: Hey! I was waiting for that spot!

        Girl #1: Face it, lady, we’re younger and faster!

        [Evelyn rear-ends the other car six times]

        Girl #1: What are you *doing*?

        Girl #2: Are you *crazy*?

        Evelyn Couch: Face it, girls, I’m older and I have more insurance.

         

        1. Tia Will

          CalAg

          So change the %$!#&@ scenarios. “

          Without the expletives….I agree. From 10 years of administration there are a couple of things that I learned. First, there is never a time when you have considered every single possibility. In a group of smart, creative people, there is always another possibility that will arise if people are not shot down and immediately told why something will not work. The second thing that I learned however, is that it is less productive to call someone’s ideas BS or a string of expletives than to present them with alternatives or gently reminders about their previously agreed to obligations.

          Now I don’t know what the alternatives might be, just as I wouldn’t expect that you guys could list the alternatives to open abdominal hysterectomy. But I would be willing to bet that some of you might have some constructive ideas.

        2. Tia Will

          Matt

          Reference is to Fried Green Tomatoes.

          Was I first ? I got so excited I had to post before reading the rest of the comments.

          If I got enough points, can I be part of the Vanguard 10 even if I don’t post anonymously ?

    4. Tia Will

      CalAg

      So change the %$!#&@ scenarios. “

      Without the expletives….I agree. From 10 years of administration there are a couple of things that I learned. First, there is never a time when you have considered every single possibility. In a group of smart, creative people, there is always another possibility that will arise if people are not shot down and immediately told why something will not work. The second thing that I learned however, is that it is less productive to call someone’s ideas BS or a string of expletives than to present them with alternatives or gently reminders about their previously agreed to obligations.

      Now I don’t know what the alternatives might be, just as I wouldn’t expect that you guys could list the alternatives to open abdominal hysterectomy. But I would be willing to bet that some of you might have some constructive ideas.

  4. Topcat

    What’s going on with the Orchard Park site?  When is it planned for redevelopment and how many housing units are planned there?  It seems like that site could accommodate a lot of the demand for student housing.

    1. CalAg

      The redevelopment opportunity is about twice the size of Nishi – so about 80 acres or four times the size of the proposed student housing complex on Nishi.

      I think Katehi could easily get 5,000 new beds (to offset the impacts of the 2020 plan) on this site if she chose to do so.

      1. Matt Williams

        CalAg, your “5,000 new beds” comment above confuses me.  According to http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article2600944.html “The collection of two-bedroom Orchard Park units on the northwest end of campus has long been home to graduate students and their families. At just over $900 a month, the 200 apartments remain affordable in a city where anti-growth policies and rising student enrollment have pushed rental rates ever higher.” and “The previous $80 million redevelopment plan for Orchard Park envisioned a mix of 431 units for graduate students, families, other students and campus staff. Under the proposal, which officials began exploring in 2009, rent would range from $876 for a one-bedroom unit to $2,165 for a three-bedroom unit depending on the type of housing, according to the university.”

        How do you envision the current 200 apartment site being transformed into 5,000 new beds?

      2. Topcat

        I think Katehi could easily get 5,000 new beds (to offset the impacts of the 2020 plan) on this site if she chose to do so.

        The Orchard Park site seems like a much better alternative for high density student housing than the Nishi site.  It has fewer access issues.  It would not require a very expensive undercrossing under the railroad tracks.  It is also conveniently located to shopping (University Mall) as well as good access to Unitrans. It is close enough to campus for easy bike commuting.

        I don’t understand why there isn’t an effort to advocate for development of the Orchard Park site.

        1. Matt Williams

          Topcat, the answer to that is simple … and contained in the Bee article.  The current units at both Orchard Park and Solano Park are both old and far from upscale.  As a result they are affordable, especially for married graduate students.  The current residents of both those complexes actively protested the University’s plans to redevelop those sites because their expectation was that the affordable rents that were the result of “old and far from upscale” would be replaced by unaffordable rents that would result from the conversion to “new and upscale.”

        2. Topcat

          The current residents of both those complexes actively protested the University’s plans to redevelop those sites….

          This sounds right for Solano Park.  The Orchard Park site is completely unoccupied at the present time.  It is fenced off and the buildings are derelict.  I can’t see how there would be much opposition to redeveloping this site given the current conditions and the need for more student housing.

          1. Matt Williams

            The Sac Bee article was published prior to the closing of Orchard Park. The University proceeded with the closing even though there were protests.

  5. CalAg

    “At the same time, residents in Davis need to understand that this is a college town and that means, somehow, we need to provide appropriate living spaces for students.” @ David Greenwald

    No. Actually we don’t.

    62% of the housing stock in Davis is already rental – that includes 12,000 apartments and almost 4,000 rental houses (including condos and multiplexes). We only have 9,500 owner-occupied houses.

    This is not a problem we can build our way out of.

    1. Mark West

      “This is not a problem we can build our way out of.”

      The only way to address a housing shortage is to build more housing.  Sitting on our asses waiting for the University to solve the problem for us may be the ‘Davis Way’, but that doesn’t make it any less stupid.

      The cohort that we are losing are the young families that will provide for the future of the City, so any new construction should address their needs. Currently, the houses that are priced low enough for young families to afford are being purchased by investors and turned into mini-dorms.  While we can and should start building more of these moderately priced homes, unless we address the demand for mini-dorms first, the new housing will just be lost to investors for rentals.  Consequently, the clear first step is to dramatically increase the availability of apartments in town by fast-tracking new construction and redevelopment projects.

      We need new apartments and moderately priced single family homes, and we need them now.  We have plenty of space, what we lack are the intelligence and will to address the problem in a meaningful way.

      1. Matt Williams

        pierce, on July 7th the Council received an update from Staff on “Renter Resources and Mini-Dorms (see http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20150707/10-Renter-Resources-and-Mini-Dorms.pdf for the Staff Report.

        Staff included the following information at the top of page 2 of that Staff Report:

        The City’s housing stock includes (2014 data)

        11,947 Multi-family (Apartment) rental units

        13,418 Single family/Condominium/Duplex units* * 3,887 are rental units (29%)

        This totals 25,365 residential units in Davis with 62% of the units being rentals.

  6. Matt Williams

    David Greenwald said … “The Vanguard has questioned whether the city should allow the current EMQ FamiliesFirst facility to fall out of current usage due to the likely future need for residential treatment in light of Propostion 47. But nearby residents are concerned that the proposed Sterling Apartments, a five-story, 270-unit project, is too big for the existing site.”

    From my discussions with a number of the nearby Rancho Yolo residents, the issue really isn’t that the project is too big, but rather that the project will have only one entrance/exit, and that one  entrance/exit will add a significant incremental volume of traffic to 5th Street at a point where there are already backup problems due to the entrance to the US Post Office driveway.  I believe virtually all the nearby resident opposition would evaporate if the Stirling Apartments proposal included a one-way, north-south vehicle flow through the complex, with the north-side access from 5th Street being “entrance only” and the “exit” being on the south side of the EMQ FamiliesFirst property onto 2nd Street.

      1. Matt Williams

        What they have told me is that their primary Davis traffic intersection is 5th and Pole Line, and adding all the 2-way Sterling Apartments traffic volume to that intersection will create a huge problem in that intersection, which (like the Richards corridor) they believe is already operating at a compromised Level of Service.

        1. hpierce

          Ok… not facts, speculation.  Comparing Richards corridor to Pole Line/Fifth is factually incorrect.  And either self-serving or stupid.  Or both.  If the project moves forward, we’ll see actual counts, and professional estimates.

          As it stands, all I smell is paranoia.  Fifth Street is well served by Unitrans.  Free to students.

    1. Jim Frame

      with the north-side access from 5th Street being “entrance only” and the “exit” being on the south side of the EMQ FamiliesFirst property onto 2nd Street.

      First, that assumes that one of the owners on Second Street would be willing to allow Stirling exit traffic to traverse his property.  I’d give that a low probability of happening.  The commercial office tenants likely wouldn’t want to have to deal with a constant flow of cars, and the public storage owners aren’t likely to rearrange their sites to accommodate that, either.

      Second, Second Street isn’t well-connected to the rest of the road network in that area.  There’s no public connection to Pole Line (though you can cut through the Sudwerk parking lot if you’re willing), so Stirling residents who want to go north on Pole line would have to go a mile or so out of their way (via Cantrill Drive or L Street) to get there.

      It just doesn’t seem like a plausible plan to me.

      1. Matt Williams

        All good points Jim.  The barriers to achieving that solution are significant.  Perhaps impossibly significant.

        Your reply does prompt two follow-up lines of discussion.  First, you reference “a constant flow of cars” in your first paragraph.  Sterling Apartments has very clearly indicated that they envision any apartments built on that site to be very specifically targeted for the student rental market, and they self describe themselves  as the “Largest builder and developer of off-campus student housing in the country, having completed student housing developments at thirty-nine different national universities.”  Further, in their presentation to Council they made a strong commitment to the primary transportation modalities for the students being bicycles and public transportation, where is the constant flow of cars going to come from.

        Second, any flow of cars would be almost completely truncated if the apartments do not provide a parking space as part of the monthly unit rental fee.  Charging $300 a month for a parking space (it would be $500 a month in San Francisco), would suppress the proportion of cars to beds almost completely down to 0.0 (the level currently realized at many of the UCD on campus housing sites).

        Third, if Stirling achieves its goal of the site being student housing, how many of the residents would actually have any interest in going north on Pole Line?  Their axis of daily activity would be east-west, to and from the UCD campus, rather than north-south, and the logistical challenges you describe would not apply to bicycles.

        I look forward to your thoughts.

         

         

        1. Jim Frame

          If cars can effectively be eliminated from the complex, the need for a southern exit would appear to be eliminated as well.  I was only looking at the practicality of the north-in-south-out concept.

          I do have a secondary concern about keeping cars out of off-campus apartments: car owners who rent in the complex but keep their cars on city streets. That would result in parking pressures similar to those already seen in neighborhoods in the vicinity of campus, with all the messiness that entails.

        2. Mark West

          I agree with Jim, and will add that I use that intersection several times a week at all hours, and rarely see an issue with traffic.  I think the neighbors concerns are unfounded, even if every new resident of the proposed project brought a car with them.

           

           

    2. Anon

      If you listen carefully to Rancho Yolo LEADERS, which the Senior Citizens Commission did at one of their on site meetings which happened to be at Rancho Yolo,  the real issue is they want the Families First site to remain as is, and have a new nonprofit run it.

    1. Jim Frame

      is Trackside to be MF rentals?  Thought it was going to be a condo

      I don’t know if there’s any legal and effective way to prevent condo owners from renting their units.  If that’s the case, then we’re likely to see a common scenario:  units bought by parents for use by their children while going to school and then being turned into generic rentals.

    1. CalAg

      The demographic curve is bimodal, and the 25-55 cohort is rapidly collapsing. I’d say that Davis is evolving into a weird hybrid of retirement community and student ghetto with a shrinking element of change-adverse small town suburbia (that isn’t willing or able to read the writing on the wall).

  7. Biddlin

    The only ones who can afford to retire in Davis have already done so, for the most part. And it occurs to me that the City of Davis loses gravitas to the University in terms of really controlling the land use. Your moat may well become your internment camp.

      1. Matt Williams

        Although I have no hard data to support this belief, only a wealth of anecdotal data, I nonetheless believe that there are very few new retiree residents in Davis who have come here with no pre-existing connections to Davis.  Many of the retirees I have talked to are here because of one of two reasons, either (1) they have children/grandchildren who already live here, or (2) they are UC Davis alumni coming back to be close to all the good memories they accumulated during their four (or more) years as UCD students.

        So Davis is not becoming a retirement destination for those two demographic groups , it always has been a retirement destination for them.

  8. Topcat

    Getting back to the original headline: Just Where Are Students Supposed to Live?

    My answer would be that the University should redevelop the Orchard Park site into new high density student housing.  It looks to me like the Orchard Park site has a lot fewer problems than the Nishi property.  Perhaps someone from the University can enlighten us as to when and how the site will be redeveloped?

    1. Matt Williams

      The University went into that issue in some depth in last Wednesday’s UC Davis Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Open House @ Davis Senior Center that lasted from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM. Given your question, I’m assuming you missed that event.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for