I am always struck by the discourse on land use in this town. With every issue there are legitimate reasons to oppose or support a given project, but there are also excuses that are disguised as reasons as well.
The Vanguard is getting the sense from some sources that community pushback and other considerations will result in UC Davis dropping a proposal to redevelop Russell and Howard Fields along Russell Boulevard into student housing.
From my perspective this is not just a NIMBY-led opposition to building housing along Russell Blvd. Rather, I think there are several legitimate reasons to oppose housing in this particular location.
Let me be clear – the university has indeed fallen short on its historic commitment for on-campus housing. The city is running at a vacancy rate of 0.2 percent and that was before there will be another 1000-student increase in enrollment this fall, with limited additional on-campus housing options. And yes, I believe that the university should honor its commitment to house 90 percent of new students – and I would argue that is a low number.
At the same time, I do not believe that simply means we accept a university plan to put housing just anywhere. While I am understanding of some arguments for that location – including close proximity to the downtown as well as the core area of campus – other considerations outweigh those advantages.
I neither live across the street from the university nor do I drive through that corridor each morning as I did for 15 years prior to moving to South Davis in 2012. Nevertheless, I think it would be a mistake to build housing there.
First, the fields are well utilized by intramural sports and also community members.
Second, they serve as a critical transition from the city to the university. By putting up more three-story student housing along Russell, we risk turning the whole span from La Rue to A Street into a heavily urbanized corridor.
Third, I simply believe that there are better places to put high-density housing. I have suggested three locations – West Village, south of Aggie Stadium, and at Nishi.
Fourth, while I am less concerned about traffic impacts from the housing – mostly because students will not be traveling into campus by car in the morning or flowing out at peak hours in the afternoon – there are concerns about the impacted intersection at Howard and Russell, not to mention potential impacts of putting the recreational fields out near West Village.
The bottom line for me, however, is just because I think the university needs to build more on-campus housing doesn’t oblige me to accept housing anywhere the university proposes. The nice thing about UC Davis is that they do not suffer from a lack of land to build housing.
As I said, I simply believe there are better spots to put the housing, but, not only that, better ways to make the housing innovative.
While UC Davis has become more aspirational in recent years, I think UC Davis along with the city of Davis have missed the boat in terms of innovative new ways to provide housing, retail and economic development to the city and the university.
For example, when I see what USC Village has proposed to do on just 15 acres, I wonder why UC Davis is shooting so low.
Here is one description of the USC project: “With conveniences that include a full-service grocery store and 100,000-square-feet of additional retail, USC Village will have all the amenities and comforts of a town center for students and neighborhood families, set amid vibrant green spaces for open recreation. The retail planned for the USC Village include places for dining, entertainment, shopping, and evenings out with friends.”
One article, from the fall, wrote, “Imagine a bustling, welcoming residential community where Trojans can eat, sleep, study, play, dream, mingle and, above all, discover themselves. Picture inviting residence halls with private courtyards opening onto an inviting town square. A scholarly enclave churning with possibilities—outdoor concerts, poetry readings, street theater. A place where undergraduates can hang out with distinguished faculty outside the classroom.”
They added, “USC Village will bring this vision to life—and revolutionize the landscape of the university. This 1.25-million-square-foot, residential-retail center on the north side of the University Park Campus will feature a cluster of five-story residence halls encircling a grand plaza that will form the pinnacle of student life at USC. For up to 2,700 students each year, USC Village will be home away from home.”
Now USC itself is investing $650 million into the USC Village.
Think about that, on just 15 acres, they are housing 2700 students a year (same number as Poly Canyon Village on half the acreage), they are not going above five stories and they are providing a space for retail and amenities, as well as open space.
Yeah, $650 million is a lot of money, but the university would recoup that through the other activities in the space. Build something like this on 30 acres that is housing 5500 students, and you not only have solved your student housing project, you do so in a way that pushes the university to new heights.
Someone this week accused me of thinking small with regard to housing along Russell – I just see the possibilities as far larger than a few three-story student housing buildings along an already useful portion of campus.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“just because I think the university needs to build more on-campus housing doesn’t oblige me to accept housing anywhere the university proposes.”
This is interesting. How far do you extend this concept of “David’s sphere of influence”?
It is an example of the arrogance of the activists of Davis who act as if they have the right to dictate how others use their land and resources. It is the characteristic that is at the heart of the ‘Davis Way’ and the root cause of our fiscal and social problems.
Mark is back with more overblown anit-Davis hyperbole. No one is claiming to be able to dictate what the University will or will not do, but it is perfectly reasonable for the city to attempt to work with the University to further both parties’ interests.
“its complicated” would be the relationship status for the University and the City.
” but it is perfectly reasonable for the city to attempt to work with the University to further both parties’ interests.”
Yes, it certainly would have been, but the city has proven itself to be unreasonable, so that ship has sailed.
The City houses over 70% of the students at UCD. Davis houses as many or more UC students than any other city in California. That is hardly a city that is being unreasonable.
Are you sure that this true? What about Berkeley? Isla Vista? San Diego?
Berkeley is the only one thats close. Just look at the FOI request article David wrote about campus housing the other day and you can work backwards from those numbers to see for yourself.
I Don’t agree HF. A lot more Berkeley student commute in from other cities.
Grok, do you have anything to back that up? I mean I agree just based on the numbers from the UC itself that David ran the other day the other campuses house more students (therefore the cities house less), but those numbers suggest Berkely is actually a little worse than Davis.
Fair enough HF. I was basing it on the numbers I had pulled from US News and World reports and posted here a few weeks ago. I just looked and your right, the FOI numbers David Posted are inexplicably different than the US News numbers. I still think more Berkeley students commute, but I don’t have anything to back it up. In any case, it is clear that Davis houses more UC students than most other cities that have UC’s. I would also note Berkeley is more than twice the size of Davis.
David,
On numerous occasions you have advocated for more sales tax for Davis. This village would compete against Davis merchants and would, I believe, have a lower tax rate than shops in Davis. Not only would Davis not receive any new revenue but we may lose old revenue as well.
Why are we entitled to get tax revenue for students for whom we don’t want to build housing in town for?
What does “entitled” have to do with it? Do you want the revenue or not?
Perhaps this revenue question is where we differ quielo. I first and foremost want the students to have access to a great University education at UCD including both affordable student housing and opportunities to take part in a robust campus life that includes a thriving IM sports program. That is why I believe the fields should be kept in a central location on campus so they are accessible to as many students as possible. That is also why I believe it is essential that the University build much more affordable student focused housing on campus.
I am not looking at the students as walking dollar signs here to be taken advantage of fill the city’s coffers. All I would ask is that they pay their fair share.
I’m not going to tell someone they have to live on campus and then demand that they shop in town so we get revenue.
Agreed. But they will probably come in to town sometimes and spend some money even with facilities on campus.
Which is fine
Who’s demanding that they have to shop in town if they live on campus? You’re just making up arguments here. The city can entice people to shop in town.
“I am not looking at the students as walking dollar signs here to be taken advantage of” so much for any career aspirations you have in marketing.
There are two issues . . . first, the incremental addition to the economy within the City Limits. Second, the amount of sales tax revenue that the student spending within the City Limits will generate.
Head scratching. Is any city ever entitled to get anyone’s sales tax revenue, but it’s nice to have especially when we’re in the financial shape we’re in now.
I guess I just don’t understand GD’s principles here. Almost everyday we are treated to an article about lack of revenues with an apocalyptic theme. Many of the problems ares structural and the time to fix them has passed as in the big box stores are already built and the age of building them is coming an end. Now is the time that large infrastructure projects are being commissioned and I am curious about the lack of interest on how the various options will impact city revenues.
I don;t understand why there are lots of article about things we cannot do anything about and no consideration about what we can. From a city revenue POV it seems that Nishi and Russell fields are the best choices and West Village is far inferior.
Even if there are stores and restaurants on campus, the students will still come into Davis for shopping and entertainment sometimes. Perhaps there will not be as large an increase in tax revenue, but there would be an incremental increase.
Seems pretty unlikely since the vast majority of students will still live in town.
“I think there are several legitimate reasons to oppose housing in this particular location.”
There are legitimate reasons to oppose housing at every location. So the housing shortage continues and the problems associated with it never get addressed.
That is a complete misanthropic mis-characterization of what is being argued. David, many commenters and Friends of Russell Blvd. Fields are urging the University build more housing in other locations, but that the valuable existing level playing fields are a better use of the precious resource of land at the core of campus and the intersection of the campus with the city.
“With conveniences that include a full service grocery store and 100,000 sq feet of additional retail…will have all the ammenities of a town center…for dining, entertainment, shopping and evenings out”.
If the implication is that this is a model for Davis, this is crazy. I guess there would be no need for students to shop at Ace, Target, Trader Joes, Safeway, or at any other downtown business except maybe the bars and nightclubs. This would be a massive drop in the already paltry amount of sales tax revenue that Davis gets compared to surrounding communities. But hey, Davisites can just vote for another parcel tax (with a senior exemption) to make up for the loss.
I would not be surprised if UCD does in fact do something like this. They could easily contract out the building and management and get a nice revenue stream out of it. It would be a pretty logical response to all the local opposition to building any new student housing any closer to town than the Pedrick fruit and vegie market.
Maybe the solution is to do nothing other than pass parcel taxes. Soon this town will consist solely of mini-dorm owning senior citizens and UCD student renters. The seniors can exempt their primary property and pass the tax on to the students.
WesC – Your fears are overblown. Even if the University manages to build out housing for 50% of its student population in the next 10 years, existing Davis housing will not sit empty. Davis is a vibrant thriving community and it will continue to be for years to come.
Yes there are revenue issues, but where student housing is built is neither going to solve nor exacerbate the problem.
The other point to remember is that this village may have lower prices as they would not have to charge Yolo/Davis sales taxes so they draw people away from shopping in Davis.
The NIMBY’s and BANANA’s have painted themselves into a corner. They demanded that UCD build housing and when UCD proposes to do just that they say “whoa, wait a minute, not there”.
Yes, when the University released plans to destroy the much loved and heavily used Russell Blvd fields at the very end of the “input period” of the Long Range Development Plan process and right before spring finals (thus minimizing any opportunity for students to learn of the plans) Davisites said “Whoa, wait a minute here.”
The university can build taller on the other proposed sites and easily house the 1,000 students proposed for Russell fields. The University even has more sites they can build beyond that to house even more students.
There are also plenty of grass fields all over the campus that can take the place of the Russell fields.
Not true. No other fields are as centrally located. 70% of the students live off campus, and of those the majority live in Central, East and South Davis. For all of those students the Russell Blvd. fields are far easier to get to than the fields that are being proposed to replace them on the far side of West Village.
Further, with the massive increase in student enrollment planned for UCD, more fields will be needed, not less.
Take everything you just wrote and the same things can be applied as to why the student housing should be built on the Russell fields.
Grok – you destroy much of your remaining objectivity credibility demonstrating so much hypocrisy opposing this UCD-built housing. And your dismissal of the city’s fiscal problems add to your growing credibility problems.
Frankly (because I am), I no longer trust that you would be supportive of any significant development.
The same is true for several others posting opposition to this latest of several attempts to actually solve critical problems in our city.
Well I have been posting on here for several days advocating for 10 story buildings built for student housing on campus, but maybe your not paying attention.
Where? Woodland?
As I’ve always said, NIMBYism isn’t an inherent instinct, it mostly doesn’t exist until it becomes something in your own backyard.
NIMBYism is just a manifestation of a selfish-human personality disorder.
Frankly
“NIMBYism is just a manifestation of a selfish-human personality disorder.”
I believe that the DSM V categorizes it the same as taxation abhorrence syndrome.
Odin, I respectfully disagree. I believe that, like so many human nature patterns, NIMBYism exists in its hosts in an inactive state, waiting for a conspiracy of events to activate it. For some human beings that activation happens when your own backyard is affected. For others the activation radius is much broader.
South of Aggie Stadium would be a very short-sighted location for housing. That’s in the rapidly-expanding Vet Med district, and there’s only one parcel of significant size there that’s not developed. Cutting off Vet Med from future expansion isn’t a good idea from my perspective.
Agreed. David’s suggestions are another example of the futility of trying to dictate to the University on planning issues. We simply do not understand their multitude of demands and goals so our ‘ideas’ are at best uninformed.
Our focus should be on fixing the City’s problems, not trying to dictate to others how to fix theirs.
Building apartments on the Russell fields will create problems for the city.
The large zip car parking area in the proposed apartments on Russell will have traffic impacts on Russell. Such a rental car facility in the central campus could be very heavily used.
Russell will be transformed into a urban corridor. Lacking the open space provided by the fields thus dramatically changing the character of the town.
Students who currently use the centrally located fields on Russell and A street will instead use centrally located Davis park facilities.
Russell is already an urban corridor. It’s not a relaxing place to walk, no one sits out on their porch to watch the world go by, it’s a major transportation route.
On the part of Russell by Russell fields there are regularly people on the front lawns in front of the houses and the fields are heavily used for a wide range of recreation activities event though it is also a major (for Davis) transportation route.
No, building high density student housing on that property solves problems that you yourself consistently trumpet… That UCD is not doing enough of its share of providing student housing.
The only real “problem” is that it upsets you and other resident NIMBYs. That helps me be more supportive of the project.
Yes, but they’re all playing beer pong.
“Yes, but they’re all playing beer pong.”
Painted my monitor with french roast on that one. Thanks!
I appreciate that you admit people do currently use the lawns on Russell unlike your earlier statement. Just because they don’t sit alone on their porch with a nice Chardonnay doesn’t make their choice of front yard activity less valid. But the real problem with your statement is its more of the typical anti-student rhetoric so common in Davis. For the Most part students are hard working, studious and relatively quiet. The activities that happen on the lawns are not limited to beer pong. In fact very soon these lawns will be full of all of the silly songs and cheers and other Fall rush activities. – all part of the atmosphere of a college town.
You seem to be lacking a sense of humor.
The houses facing Russell Field are mostly fraternity houses. “Hard working” — maybe. “Studious” — possibly. “Relatively quiet”? No.
there you go calling people names again. I am pretty sure no one posting on here lives anywhere close to the Russell fields.
“Our focus should be on fixing the City’s problems, not trying to dictate to others how to fix theirs.”
This conveniently ignores the fact that much of the city’s housing problems are the direct effect of the failure of the university to house even the number of students that they had promised to house.
Tia has this completely right.
Agreed Tia.
There are many other good places student housing could be built on campus beyond what David has identified.
Biddlin
“Yes, it certainly would have been, but the city has proven itself to be unreasonable, so that ship has sailed.”
I completely disagree. It is never too late to move to a more collaborative process. I am quite sure that administrators and planners from both the city and the university are adults who are capable of finding ways to work together rather than to continue with the past intransigence of both sides.
That being said Tia, how do you say that the “people of Davis” have an opinion on this. Since I don’t believe that there will be a vote on whether we are in favor or not it would have to be some decision of our elected officials to communicate. Will this be an agenda item or a a discussion with the 2X2 committee and they will say what?
quielo
“and they will say what?”
Whatever they want. I do not believe that “the people of Davis” speak with one voice. But I believe strongly that every voice has the right to be heard.
quielo et al,
Actually you, Biddlin, Adam Smith, and ryankelly (who may all be the same person because you all sound exactly the same) all keep bring up this very incorrect and condescending comment. Since apparently none of you really seem know about the UCD LRDP process (which was widely advertized), just to bring you all up to speed UCD invited public input on its LRDP update.
So did any of you guys participate in that public input process? I’ll bet the answer is “no” since none of you seem to know what you are talking about with these baseless assertions you guys continue to try out.
“It is never too late to move to a more collaborative process.”
Decades of bad faith on the city’s part have resulted in UCD taking a more reasonable path.
More Davis bashing. Actually Davis has very clearly lived up to its part of the MOU while the University has not.
Davis has done nothing meaniful in terms of housing students or responsible development of residential housing, so far this century. This is not Davis bashing. It is a recitation of the choices Davis has made that leave it out of the discussion of where UC will build. Choices that you reasonably should have known would lead to this point. Your dawdling, your choices. If you want a seat at the table now, I would think extraordinary solicitations and accommodation on your part would be necessary and as we say in the jazz world, “You ain’t got the chops!”
Biddlin,
I just noticed this over-reaching statement by you that you posted earlier, which is so over-the-top it is ridiculous. The City of Davis is providing at least 70% of UCD student housing, so you are completely incorrect on this.
The obvious question is why are you so intent on trying to impose more UCD housing on the City, and why are you not advocating for more high-density on housing on on-campus sites (other than the Russell and Howard fields)? Do you have any relationship with UCD or developers for advocacy in any way?
I was going to disagree with Biddlin until I noticed the “so far this century” part. It’s been quite awhile since any significant new rental housing was built in Davis.
Well, there have been several things built in the last 17 years, but maybe the cannery should have been more student oriented instead of having to advertise in Marin.
Biddlin
Again ignoring the fact that the university demonstrated bad faith by not housing the target number of students that they had agreed to house, also over the span of decades.
I would say it is time for both sides to drop the adversarial approach and work collaboratively to solve this problem.
Well said Tia.
I see this as great news, and more evidence that the University is starting to respond to residents’ concerns. I sincerely hope that the sources mentioned are correct.
I suspect that in years to come, we’ll all be glad to see these fields saved, and the University’s building efforts focused and intensified on other sites previously discussed.
Ron, if they use this as an excuse to do nothing will you still be happy? Do not ever underestimate the odds of “do nothing” being the outcome of any process.
No. But, I don’t think that saving this one site will cause that.
Ron is right on this. If anything I think this will make the University better realize how important it is to start building taller now.
Ok, we’ll wait and see.
Some of us are doing more than that. Otherwise, there wouldn’t have been a drastic change in the University’s plans to build more housing on campus. Also, it seems that the University is listening to residents’ concerns regarding Russell and Howard Fields. (More evidence that we’re making a positive difference.)
But, I suspect that some will continue to criticize, instead of joining these efforts. (Comment not directed at anyone in particular.)
Ron I whole heatedly agree. Just like Davis Central park that was saved from becoming a strip mall, Or NYC Central park, as the campus becomes more dense, these open spaces will be all the more important.
Davis Central Park was not saved from being a strip-mall… falsehood… the “Arden-Mayfair” site, a block to the south (between Third and Fourth, B and C) was spared from being (in short order) a commercial “mall”, and a new, centralized City Hall [instead, the City bought the old, dilapidated high school and grounds, at a princely sum, from DJUSD, and sunk millions into “refurbishing” City offices, giving a portion back to DJUSD for King High (twice) for “love and affection”, creating the Senior Center, building a CC Chambers (then giving DJUSD basically free use of that,), and giving the County a site for local presence…]
Oh, and then the City improved the Arden-Mayfair lot as an extension to Central Park (which actually were homes before Central Park)… the City acquired the home sites, but didn’t have enough dirt to fill in the cellar spaces, hence the “sunken grove”. Central Park didn’t exist until “a bit” after the City was incorporated in 1917… think it was acquired and improved as a WPA project… the old bathrooms were WPA for sure…
Rifkin and or Lofland could corroborate or correct on this…
The planning and construction occurred in 1938-39, according to John Lofland. He said that the design was modeled on a “sunken garden” that then existed on campus.
That is the only block I was referring to and even at the time there was disagreement about whether what was being planned was a “strip mall” or something else. either way the same idea holds. The park was saved from commercial development and has become a gem in the center of Davis.
David, I suspect that USC’s plans to build a safe housing community with all the amenities on site has everything to do with USC’s location. UC Davis has the benefit of a safe community and doesn’t need to provide this to attract students. It does need to provide housing, but I oppose the building of a duplicate town just so the city of Davis doesn’t expand an inch. Any growth, whether by the City or University, needs to be contiguous, dense and logical. If the only place that the University can build is Southwest of campus, then, yes, it will need its own grocery store and other stores. This is too bad, because we have a struggling shopping center just a mile or so to the North that could benefit, if not for all car traffic being diverted East and away from that shopping center.
I am again so surprised at those who would argue that building apartments for only 1,000 students is a better use of space right at the intersection of Davis and the campus.
As the campus gets bigger, it needs to think bigger and build much taller and it can do it on the other proposed sites, thus preserving the fields and the atmosphere of the school into the future.
It is very short sighted to destroy this valuable open space and recreation area at the core of campus to build so little housing – housing that can be built just by building taller at other already proposed sites.
On this we agree. I think any housing built along Russell should step back to high-rise. I can see Aggie Village density at Russell and A, but backed up by multi-story.
Thanks Jim. If Highrise dorms and apartments are built on the other UC proposed sites, then there is not the same need to build on Russell fields.
You’re welcome, Grok. But on this we disagree, as I believe that the other proposed sites are less desirable locations for student housing.
Fair enough Jim. reasonable people can disagree
What is less desirable about the Regan site? It is only a few hundred feet away?
Regan would be an “and,” not an “or.” To me the desirability factor decreases the farther you get from central campus, especially once you cross 113.
OK, I can respect that if you are advocating for massive increases in housing on campus. Where I think we disagree is I see centralized playing fields as an important part of student life, and many other very good options for housing.
The housing west of 113 will be much more desirable once it reaches critical mass. It will certainly be more desirable than the further flung apartments in town.
David,
I honestly, and respectfully, disagree that your counter-arguments outweigh the benefits of this project. Look at that plan – there is a nice amount of green space still left there. Yes, it will be more heavily urbanized, but we need this densification if we are going to reduce automobile traffic around town. An urban model is what we need to help downtown business remain strong.
You’ll notice that the Russell construction from LaRue to California are quite reasonable in their traffic impacts. The new International Center, which will serve international students, will tie in nicely with the (old and new) dormitories on Russell.
This “traffic impacts on Howard and Russell” is a real red herring. As we noticed from the traffic diet on 5th Street, thoughtfully redirecting traffic and timing stop lights can go a long way to increasing throughput. And, as I said in an earlier comment, close College Park to Russell and open the 8th street side.
There is room for this housing, AS WELL AS housing in the places you propose (West Village and near the Football Field – heck go ahead, tear out the football field, what has it really done for UC except help destroy the other men’s varsity programs??! Of course, that’s just rhetoric). Can’t we say to the university “yes, we can make this work for everyone AND you need to go further and build more housing on other pieces of your land”?
What I’d like to point out to you is that this development has pluses and minuses when, if you look at them a little more objectively, might, in actuality, make it a net positive. It is not, however, a clear clear negative. So the STRONG opposition to it that I see in the letters, and the pretty strong opposition that you are leading (remember, yours is a prominent voice) simply smacks of NIMBY.
Davisites should look carefully at all these proposals, to be sure. However, many vocal Davisites seem so cocksure in their opposition to all sorts of interesting development and any sort of change – especially if that change has the slightest possibility of hurting their home prices.
I have no dog in this fight, other than (a) I’m a resident of town (b) I work at this university and (c) I think busy bodies in our town so intent on constraining development that we have priced out young families and are re-distributing wealth from university students from working class families to long time Davis landlords.
Can we stop acting like every development is a horseman of the Davis Apocalypse and allow that some are simply a judgement call?
“especially if that change has the slightest possibility of hurting their home prices.”
I really hate this argument. People don’t always voice concerns based on greed. Some regret the loss of athletic fields, some worry about it’s affects on traffic, and others may just feel it’s not a good fit for Davis, or some all of the above and more.
This just is not true. the fields will be reduced to landscaping dominated by the apartment buildings.
@Odin: I said “especially” – I did not say “exclusively”. So you hate that argument, fine. I hate the argument that grass is more important than housing. But, I also hate using the word “hate”.
@Grok: “a nice amount of green space” is a matter of judgement. I think it is a nice amount of green space. I think there is too much green space there for what is getting used at the moment.
I can make the argument that it makes more sense for sports to be on the larger open spaces on the west end of campus since watching a bunch of IM sports is not really the way a campus opens up to its city. You’d disagree with that argument…. BUT we are arguing judgement calls.
My point is that every little development seems to get held up by a lot of Davisites with their hair on fire.
I, personally, think this looks like a nice development and I, personally, think that all of your arguments against it simply boil down to aesthetics and an overly conservative mindset about development.
Save your fighting energy for the proposals that are clearly egregious, not these that are simply at the margins.
Sure, just like there are people who thought Davis Central Park would be better as a strip mall it was a matter of differing opinions. Of course now 30 years later it is a cherished part of our community. The denser and taller the campus is built, the more important preserving open space like these fields is.
You clearly are not understanding that having fields at the center of campus is to provide healthy use for the greatest number of students. Putting them at the far reaches of West Village makes them much less accessible for the majority of students.
The other day you accused advocates of preserving the filed of thinking small, quite the opposite, we are thinking big. Build tall on the other sites now, and save the open space for recreation. House more students and preserve the quality of life on campus.
Advocating for 3 story buildings that house only 1,000 students and greatly limits recreation options is the real small thinking here.
“ I, personally, think that all of your arguments against it simply boil down to aesthetics and an overly conservative mindset about development.”
I have a different perspective on this. The playing fields along Russell at least about 5 years ago used to serve both university and high school students. My son used to practice on these fields with his varsity lacrosse team. At a time when we are short of playing fields in the city, I think that it is reasonable to see this as a true loss of athletic space as opposed to just a matter of aesthetics. With many more university students expected over the next few years, I think that we should be thinking about conserving mutually convenient playing fields available to both university and city athletes.
Agreed, and this seems to be what Grok said, as well.
And again, assuming that David’s sources are correct, I’d like to express sincere appreciation for our public University’s willingness to consider local input.
Yes Tia, I very much agree with your 1:29 pm post
Of course what is being proposed for the Russell Blvd. fields is quite different because it is apartments with extensive Zip car rental facilities. Adding rental cars so close to the core of campus and major bus hub is bound to have traffic impacts. I think car sharing programs are a great way to better utilize resources, but the traffic from something like this should not be overlooked.
Of course it should not be overlooked, I never suggested that it should be overlooked – but nor should it be overstated!
We can do an quick assessment of traffic from dorms on campus by looking at Primero Grove and the other apartments near LaRue on Russell. Students are not taking these cars out during the prime traffic times (5-6 pm, 8-9 am) because they bike or walk to class from there.
There is no convincing you, Grok (as you won’t be able to convince me). Nonetheless, the truth of this is that the pros probably outweigh the cons on this project by a bit or even a lot. Our town is hurting ourselves by constantly saying “no” to all new ideas. It seems to me that the university can completely ignore us if it so chooses. What I’d rather see is a “yes and…” approach; especially when the downsides of a project are really a matter of a judgement call.
JosephBiello,
This is where there is yet more disagreement. Do you really think that students at 5pm, many of which are done with classes for the day, would not be renting a Zipcar to go off-campus, be it to go shopping or go out for entertainment with fellow students within or out of town or visit someone outside of bicycling range. No…Zipcars are needed but will definitely create more traffic even at rush hour.
JosephBiello,
I am sorry that we don’t agree on this but your assumptions and conclusions are simply not what many of us are saying regarding the need for more on-campus housing. The Russell and Howard fields are not the right place for housing for many reasons which we have repeated over and over again. So let’s just say we need to agree to disagree on this subject.
Well, what you posted is exactly what we are working on. We are recommending sites on campus which would work well for higher density housing on campus, we just don’t all agree that the Russell and Howard fields are the right place for housing, but there are plenty of other options. After all UCD has over 5,300 acres. It is the largest UC campus yet, has provided the least amount of on-campus housing, and that needs to change. More on-campus housing reduces the pressure on City housing availability for non-students, so I think we agree there.
On the NIMBY accusation, with the heel-dragging that UCD has done for so many years in neglecting to build the promised on-campus housing, no one is a bigger NIMBY than UCD.
Finally, let’s just say that the term “busy body” can be used for anyone participating in this debate, depending on your point of view. Right? So perhaps you may want to refrain from using terminology like that since it is simply unnecessary to make your points. Let’s try to find solutions together rather than differences between us.
Eileen, again, there are no good compelling arguments against this development. That’s why I used “busy body” – sorry if I hurt your feelings.
It seems to me that the university can go ahead with this irrespective of the aesthetics preferences of the townsfolk, right? If we constantly say “no” then the university won’t choose to dialogue with us.
By the way, I also harbor disappointment that West Village was not allowed to open up to Russell Blvd. Again, something that I consider to be a myopic decision by whomever made it.
Eileen, your proposal seems to say “put the students as far from downtown as possible”. I lived in a college town with lots of biking that had close in dorms and far away dorms and the differences for the students were still striking.
I really look forward to seeing these dorms built on Russell field and I, for one will be sure to support them.
West Village can hardly be consider “far” from downtown. It’s no more than a 10 minute bike ride from downtown and 5 minutes from campus.
Come on JB, there is no need to be nasty to Eileen.
Actually the University asks for input as part of the Long Range Development Plan. Bob Segar the head planner even came and met with the Friends of Russell field and asked for input. I for one am appreciative that the university does dialog with community and does listen.
@ Grok, I apologized for the “busy body” words in a different response, directly to Eileen. Sorry, never thought that “busy body” was offensive. What I’m trying to say is that we save our energy, and I don’t think that’s what you guys are doing.
As for the LRDP person, Segar, meeting with you all, that’s great. I didn’t say that the university is not listening to Davisites. I’m saying that if Davisites are constantly obstructing development, the university will have no choice but to not listen to Davisites.
Ultimately, I really like the idea of dorms close to downtown and at the campus entrance. Additionally, it would be nice to see Solano Park built to hold more students, Nishi (ha!) too, as well as Orchard Park. The “need” for greenspace is much outweighed by the need for housing. I think the housing numbers show that such a statment is not a matter of opinion. I also think that forcing housing to the periphery increases vehicle traffic. I see that on Anderson on any rainy morning when students choose to drive instead of bus or bike.
The traffic impacts of this proposal seem easily quantifiable and very controllable. The upside to downtown businesses is large. The remaining downsides are simply one group’s sense of aesthetics, of which I have the opposite sense.
JosephBiello,
Apology accepted, and I am sorry, but there are very compelling reasons why housing does not belong on Russell or Howard fields. Many of us have posted those reasons numerous times, so I will not go through it again. Again, let’s just say we need to agree to disagree on this site.
But your statement:
“Eileen, your proposal seems to say “put the students as far from downtown as possible”.
This assumption that I oppose housing near the downtown is also not true. Why doesn’t UCD intensify its density of the Regan Hall housing complex which is not far from downtown? 2,3 and some 4 story on-campus housing is only what UCD has been building which ridiculously low density relative to the on-campus housing needs, and Regan Hall is slated for redevelopment. So please try not to make more unwarranted assumptions.
UCD needs to catch up with the solutions that other universities have been doing, particularly since it claims to embrace “sustainable” housing.
Eileen, there are also compelling reasons to have that housing there.
So, densifying Regan Hall is o.k. but building new housing on Russell field is not? That is the conclusion of all of this?
Actually we are advocating extensive student housing be built at Orchard Park and Regan – both of which are slated for redevelopment in the Current LRDP. the 1,000 students slated for Russell Fields can easily be included in these plan. Both of these are within 1,000 feet from the University Mall which has restaurants, a grocery store, clothing store, furniture store a coffee shop, a bar/dance club and even Fluffy Donuts. Both are also a short bike ride to down town.
JB- Regan is a great place to build 10 story tall dorms. It is set back from Russell and is central to the campus. In fact all of the reasons you give for building on Russell fields apply to the Regan complex, plus it doesn’t destroy the athletic fields at the core of campus.
This is what thinking bigger – something you urged – looks like.
Odin,
According to Google maps 2150 Tilia is 2.1 miles on foot from Peets on “E”. That is a ways.
Sorry, I missed the apology.
On this we agree. My experience with Mr. Segar is that he is good member of the Davis community and really does his best for both Davis and the University. I also think he is a good listener.
On this we have a difference of opinion. I suspect where you see obstruction, I see hard working citizens working to grow in the best, smartest ways we can while preserving the great parts of Davis even in the face of very well financed bad ideas like the Nishi project.
While I would not focus on the downtown alone (being close to University Mall is good too), I agree. I would add apartments are good too. An alternative place I would suggest is the parking lot on the corner of A and old Davis road. It would also be great if the Center for Child and Family Studies could be given better facilities in another location to allow for even more housing along first. This location is way better than Russell fields for downtown proximity, and could easily house more than the 1,000 students proposed for Russell fields.
Agreed
Segar gave several reason he thought this would not happen and I agree.
Agreed
These two “needs” do not have to compete against each other. There are places to build the housing without destroying the fields.
Agreed. UCD provides the least housing for its students of all of the UCs. It also has the most land available to do something about it.
Building housing at West Village is a far better option than on the periphery of Davis. West Village is still a very reasonable short bike ride to the core of campus and downtown.
Agreed, it is especially bad by Cesar Chavez – but West village is closer in, and has fewer driving options. It can and should continue to have good bus service
The traffic impacts are not the main argument against building on Russel fields, but the Zip car rental facility is fairly new territory so it might be a little hard to quantify – it’s not a simple math equation after all because we are working with too many unknowns.
Upsides to Davis businesses will be realized with increasing enrollment no matter where the students live.
Although you may not value them, there are a huge number of students who use the fields. A coach and a faculty adviser for a club sport have already spoken out on the imperative of saving the fields.
Quielo, I think that’s why they invented the bicycle.
Not by bike. You chose the furthest part of West Village (which will be the midle based on the current LRDP) to measure and it still is not far by bike. It is closer than a whole lot of student housing in Davis, and its a nicer bike ride across the campus.
Eileen, who is “we?” Is there some sort committee that has formed? How was it formed? If there is a group that has formed that is influencing planning at UCD, the community needs to know who they are and how the group was created – membership criteria. Until you release this information, you should just stick to your own opinion.
ryankelly,
Looks like you don’t always read Op-eds. Our Citizen’s for Responsible Planning group started addressing this issue around a year ago. I formed it and we have invited like- minded community members to join numerous times.
I generally agree with Eileen’s goals, and I sincerely appreciate everything she’s done (and continues to do) for this city.
For those who generally support slow, controlled, and pragmatic development, I’m not sure that you (all) realize how important Eileen (and perhaps some others) are.
I don’t recall that this group has official status as a lobby or any clear membership list being released. It was my understanding that this group was formed for the purpose of filing a lawsuit without individuals having to expose themselves to personal liability if the lawsuit was lost.
JosephBiello – What is your relationship to the University? Why are you advocating for this housing in this location?
Is this the nastiness you are complaining about?
Great article Vanguard with innovative ideas which help with potential solutions to the lack of on-campus housing. I also agree with the comments by Ron and Grok, all of which are headed in a positive direction of dealing with why we need to get UCD to build much higher density housing rather than the paltry 2 and 3 and sometimes 4 stories that UCD has on-campus for housing. In fact any four story building are only freshman dorms on campus housing the students for only one year when they are then forces them off campus to find housing off campus for three or more years. The cumulative effect of that alone creating the need for more on-campus housing is enough for UCD to wake up and build higher densities on campus. In fact UCD’s four year graduation rate is only 55% which leaves plenty of super-seniors needing housing for another year or more, backing up the need for UCD’s housing even more. The UCD class sizes cannot even accommodate the student population now for the students to graduate on time now, yet they keep adding in more students. This is not planning, this is a lack of planning by UCD.
Plus, if UCD really wanted to conserve its ag land, higher densities are the way for it to go on campus. Why is UCD’s planning so far behind on this simple and sustainable planning principle.
Meanwhile, I find it interesting that all of the nay-sayers here opposing more on-campus housing are the ones being counter-productive. Not the folks posting positive solutions that are working for other California universities and that UCD needs to get up to par with.
LOL. You are a master of spin Eileen. So now you are the champion of high density housing being built in and around the city. Right.
Russell field IS UCD campus.
So do I understand that you would support 5-story appartment buildings on that UCD campus land?
Frankly, No use baiting her. She already has made it known that she opposes developing Russell Field. She wants the development to be out of sight and separate from the City core.
I don’t support development on the Russell and Howard fields for the many reasons I have posted (and should need to repeat yet again), not what you are stating in your post.
Frankly,
So here we go again. If anyone is a “spin master” that would be you. I have stated this many, many times. High density works well on-campus, but often not so in the City because of the impacts on existing neighborhoods.
I support high density housing on-campus but not on Russell and Howard fields for the many reasons I have posted, over and over again, and I am simply not going to go through that fire-drill again. And yes, I do support 5-story and higher density housing on-campus.
So, this comment by you is where we agree to disagree.
And this is the part where, yes, you understand what I am saying.
Eileen, the question is, do you understand what this implies?
JosephBiello,
I think it is self-explanatory, but please explain what you are thinking it implies.
Ok, here is where we agree on Orchard Park and Solano Park with much more densification. However, we do not agree on the Nishi site. Perhaps you are not familiar with the serious air quality issues at the Nishi property since it is sandwiched in-between I-80 and the railroad tracks making it unsuitable for residential housing?
These health impact issues were raised by UCD emeritus Dr. Thomas Cahill Ph.D. who made very clear that due to the dangerous health impacts, that residential should NOT be located on the Nishi property. Are you familiar with this? He is a world renowned expert in the subject of particular matter and its effects on health, and wrote an Op-ed, letters to the editor, and testified at City Council meetings explaining all this.
This was never proven.
ryankelly,
Your challenge of this information from a respected world authority is interesting. What are your sources of expertise to disprove Dr. Cahill’s position on this health, welfare, and safety issue?
Probably this isn’t the place to debate the Nishi air quality issues again in detail, but here goes (from our discussion here before the election):
With regard to the air quality and health issues of Nishi.
The autism argument has been rebutted elsewhere, so I won’t revisit that.
Risk is a relative condition, not an absolute one. We all make risk assessments all the time as we shop, choose housing, make career choices, etc.
With respect to toxins, there’s an old axiom we all learn when we work with them (pesticides, for example): the dose makes the poison.
Second principle: the solution to pollution is dilution.
The dose makes the poison:
That apartments have been moved to the far end of the property.
Extensive mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce exposure. Siting, landscaping, and interior air cleaning technology are part of the plan.
It is limited in duration because most people who live here will be short-term. This isn’t family housing (like, say, New Harmony across the freeway).
With all of that in place, it seems likely that living at Nishi will be no more or less “toxic” than living elsewhere along the freeway.
The solution to pollution is dilution.
Wind dilutes and disperses the exhaust and particulate matter. The wind direction is, in fact, more dispersed and diverse than has been presented. What that means is that exposure to the exhaust and particulate matter is less than has been suggested, and probably not much different than living in homes on the other side of the freeway (like, say, New Harmony). Wind speed here is high compared to many other metropolitan areas. Bottom line: most of the time, the stuff will blow away.
And in any event, the risk increase of specific diseases appears to be very low. Of course, it isn’t zero. It will never be zero. Risk is relative. So for those who look at those low numbers but don’t feel safe living there, the answer would be to choose to live elsewhere. We are not talking about living next to a refinery or pollution-belching factory, no are we in an area of stagnant air and little circulation.
So it is possible to look at the risk, even look at the opinion presented by Dr. Cahill, and come to different conclusions about whether it is reasonable to build housing there and live there. It isn’t a matter of morality or ethics or political calculation. It’s a reasonable risk assessment, and everyone differs as to what their individual tolerances for various risks are.
It was his position, but it was never proven.
or refuted
RKelly – really the way to look at this is appropriate air monitoring and soil sampling has never been done to determine what is actually happening on the Nishi property.
David: Thank you for pointing this out, and for your other recent articles regarding how other campuses are handling housing concerns.
Ron,
I completely agree, and thanks for raising this point which interestingly enough, those who are posting to promote building housing for UCD in the City, which would benefit local developers, do not seem to be supporting the idea of high-density housing on the UCD campus. That is very interesting.
In fact, one of the lower density projects built on-campus which was built by Tandem properties, which unfortunately, grossly under-utilized a very central and valuable core campus site on LaRue when they built this lower density project “The Collage’s”, when it could have potentially be at least 5 stories or higher. It appears that UCD seems to be proposing repeating these mistakes, by not recruiting development companies can can do the higher density housing needed on campus, which local developer Tandem Properties does not do.
It’s worth noting that The Cottages were conceived almost 20 years ago, when high-density housing wasn’t on UCD’s radar. I don’t think Tandem bears any responsibility for that.
I can understand having a differnce of opinion on building on Russell fields. What I don’t understand is how nasty the people advocating for it can be. Why do they insist on constantly bashing Davis?
Are you trying to say that a citizens group has your requirements to form? Please let me know where this mandate is referenced.
Also, what is your source of information of what you think is the purpose of our citizens group?
Your language sounds like a “fishing expedition”.
The first time the community heard of this group was as a plaintiff in a lawsuit. Nobody seems to know who is part of this group, yet you seem to think that it has the power, or maybe the interest, to control or guide City and now UCD planning. I think the community needs to know more about this group.
I agree ryankelly. We’ve seen Grok has pursued endless seemingly endless questions of David regarding advertisers and sponsors of Vanguard. If Eileen has an organized group trying to influence housing and development in Davis, transparency demands that we know who the leadership is, where the funding is coming from, and what conflicts of interests may be present. For example, we know that Mike Harrington has a significant conflict of interest regarding additional development in Davis – he is a downtown apartment owner who benefits from high rents. Similarly, I think it would be helpful if Grok disclosed his/her business and real estate interests. Grok seem to have significant time and is willing to expend a lot of effort posting on this blog and seeking to influence development here in Davis on campus.
Yes indeed, the Vanguard is a place for a witch hunt. Evidenced right here.
ryankelly and Adam Smith,
Wow, you guys sure sound a bit worried. In case you have forgotten, UCD’s LRDP process invited input from the public. So you guys had the ability to do that just like everyone else. So did either of you submit comments when that was being asked of the public by UCD or not?
And regarding transparency, since you guys seem so concerned about that and demanding it of others, what about practicing what you preach by posting under your own names?
Ryan Smith – you crack me up.
You should probably assume my posts are an orchestrated effort of the Illuminati.
No, I’m not worried, Eileen. I was just questioning who you were referring to when you posted as “we.” Personally, I don’t like the subterfuge and the deflection of questions about your group. If it was above board, you would be more forthcoming and honest about it.
Ryan – what ugly accusation are you trying to make against Eleen?
What part of a covert plott is advocating for student housing on campus?
I am interested in schedules and timelines. When will housing be provided and how long before students and their families get some relief from this housing market? Would housing located on the corner of Russel and A be built substantially faster than anywhere else on campus? Or is it all the same?
As I understand it Russell fields apartments is not at the front of the timeline. The first thing is staff and faculty housing in West Village.
Well, that should do wonders for the city’s apartment vacancy rate.
MrsW,
Unfortunately, the wheels of the university seem to turn rather slowly. But I think that any new on-campus housing is more likely to happen first at Orchard Park and/or perhaps West Village, since Orchard Park has been vacant for 2 years and the first phase of West Village was never completed.
I’m curious Eileen, were you against West Village when it was proposed?
No
I was not involved in that process except that I agreed that West Village should not be connected with Russell Blvd.
Samitz said “Your challenge of this information from a respected world authority is interesting. What are your sources of expertise to disprove Dr. Cahill’s position on this health, welfare, and safety issue?”
Were any of Cahill’s conclusions peer reviewed? You make it sound like his work was definitive and that challenging it is unacceptable by people who lack expertise in the field. Well who in the field checked his work?