You can build a skyscraper anywhere in Davis, California(kevin.burke.dev)
kevin.burke.dev
You can build a skyscraper anywhere in Davis, California
https://kevin.burke.dev/kevin/skyscrapers-davis-california/
188 comments
I don't live in Davis anymore, but I did live there for 10+ years and used to own a home there. I love Davis. As Sheldon Copper from Big Bang theory puts it, it's my "zero-zero-zero-zero".
While I don't consider myself a NIMBY, because I wouldn't go out of my way to stop a development project, I do appreciate how it has kept Davis a really nice place to live.
I now live in Elk Grove, there are 3 Walmart within 5 minutes of me. Urban sprawl here is ridiculous and can be measured by how many dead skunks, and homeless coyotes you find on the road because farm land and wild spaces are turning into giant air conditioned homes (which I am totally guilty of owning). Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Roseville are the same. If you want to see what happens when Davis grow into a giant city, move to one of these places.
I am not sure what my point is. I guess I am just saying that what Davis is, is not bad, it can be worse.
But for the sake of conversation, if we are going to raze small towns like Davis in the quest of more housing friendly cities, I recommend we model it after Bellevue, WA. They have skyscrapers, and it's beautiful. But then again, that just speaks to the wealth disparity more than anything else... Which is also what keeps Davis so nice.
While I don't consider myself a NIMBY, because I wouldn't go out of my way to stop a development project, I do appreciate how it has kept Davis a really nice place to live.
I now live in Elk Grove, there are 3 Walmart within 5 minutes of me. Urban sprawl here is ridiculous and can be measured by how many dead skunks, and homeless coyotes you find on the road because farm land and wild spaces are turning into giant air conditioned homes (which I am totally guilty of owning). Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Roseville are the same. If you want to see what happens when Davis grow into a giant city, move to one of these places.
I am not sure what my point is. I guess I am just saying that what Davis is, is not bad, it can be worse.
But for the sake of conversation, if we are going to raze small towns like Davis in the quest of more housing friendly cities, I recommend we model it after Bellevue, WA. They have skyscrapers, and it's beautiful. But then again, that just speaks to the wealth disparity more than anything else... Which is also what keeps Davis so nice.
It's either going to go vertical or horizontal.
If people afraid of sprawl say no to vertical, then horizontal is going to happen just outside of wherever they care about.
Many people's politics are wildly irrationally disconnected from their sentiments.
I used to live in Davis. If I was King, I'd steamroll everything between A&B and 1st and Russell and replace it with ~30-40 story apartment buildings with multilevel bike parking like in Amsterdam (ex: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/c4/d7/1ec4d7a99c2151699afe...), and rooftop bars and cafes.
The walls would be a mix of vertical gardening (ex: https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/htt...) and photovoltaic windows. The bottom floors would have retail and dedicated community space.
The buildings would further have multi-level skywalks connecting them with small nook like terraces (ex: https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/59f1/27ba/b22e/38e2/a...)
There would intentionally, by design, be zero parking spaces except to accommodate the handicapped.
That's as Davis as you're going to get while actually solving the problem
If people afraid of sprawl say no to vertical, then horizontal is going to happen just outside of wherever they care about.
Many people's politics are wildly irrationally disconnected from their sentiments.
I used to live in Davis. If I was King, I'd steamroll everything between A&B and 1st and Russell and replace it with ~30-40 story apartment buildings with multilevel bike parking like in Amsterdam (ex: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/c4/d7/1ec4d7a99c2151699afe...), and rooftop bars and cafes.
The walls would be a mix of vertical gardening (ex: https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/htt...) and photovoltaic windows. The bottom floors would have retail and dedicated community space.
The buildings would further have multi-level skywalks connecting them with small nook like terraces (ex: https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/59f1/27ba/b22e/38e2/a...)
There would intentionally, by design, be zero parking spaces except to accommodate the handicapped.
That's as Davis as you're going to get while actually solving the problem
Davis has the best non tesla charger between Sacramento and the bay area. Leave some parking spaces for that.
I'm a big fan of parking on the periphery and no cars at the core.
Essentially ban private vehicles on certain blocks except for service transport and smaller golf-cart sized "NEV"s
There's many older European cities with buildings too close to each other for cars where this is done. You'll also find it on islands where the infrastructure to support a car is lacking such as roads with high speed limits and gas stations
The difference here is to claim that's not just a necessity of circumstances but instead, actually a good idea.
Essentially ban private vehicles on certain blocks except for service transport and smaller golf-cart sized "NEV"s
There's many older European cities with buildings too close to each other for cars where this is done. You'll also find it on islands where the infrastructure to support a car is lacking such as roads with high speed limits and gas stations
The difference here is to claim that's not just a necessity of circumstances but instead, actually a good idea.
Lol, ain't that the truth. When the Whole Foods was still there, the chargers around there were the best. It was close to the green belt, coffee, food, and minutes walk from downtown. You could have a real nice "small town" adventure while charging. Ahh... I miss Davis.
Alas, all good things must come to an end.
Alas, all good things must come to an end.
[deleted]
I guess that’s the idea behind trying to add infill housing, is to prevent ugly sprawl.
Davis has one of the highest bicycle mode shares of any city in the state. It’s an ideal place to add denser housing without the additional traffic or parking lots that blight a lot of bigger (and less dense) cities.
Davis has one of the highest bicycle mode shares of any city in the state. It’s an ideal place to add denser housing without the additional traffic or parking lots that blight a lot of bigger (and less dense) cities.
As someone who grew up in Elk Grove since 2001 and still visits every few months, it's an example of both NIMBY and YIMBY policies. It seems Elk Grove's city hall followed NIMBY tendencies and zoned many areas as RD-5 or worse, prohibiting multi-family dwellings. Its sprawl was partially caused by developers doing "hopscotch development" - Delta Shores was empty for over 20 years before that was infilled and the lots behind it are still empty. Same applies to the Costco and Mercy Hospital near Trader Joe's. Moving on, Elk Grove also has redeeming qualities - it is a suburb that is very racially diverse, partially thanks to the newer, relatively affordable houses in the south. I attended Cosumnes Oaks High School when it was still a lottery admissions system and saw this myself (and after it was switched to a zone admissions system that favored low-income neighborhoods, heardabout the subsequent increase in fights). However, an interesting highlight is the concept surrounding Laguna Town Hall (created when Laguna was trying to split off into its own city). There's apartments, restaurants, a large park, and an Apple campus within walking distance of each other. You can also see good ideas like new senior apartments being built right next to the Trader Joe's in Costco shopping centers for walkability. And I'd be remiss if I'd I didn't mention Elk Grove's network of bike trails, which my father says are enjoyable to ride.
So I'd say Elk Grove's sprawl was driven by NIMBY-style regulation that encouraged low density housing and failed to address the effects of hopscotch development. Within those failures, Elk Grove has a few gimpses of higher density and urban planning, as well as anecdotes about the benefits of mixing different socioeconomic classes.
So I'd say Elk Grove's sprawl was driven by NIMBY-style regulation that encouraged low density housing and failed to address the effects of hopscotch development. Within those failures, Elk Grove has a few gimpses of higher density and urban planning, as well as anecdotes about the benefits of mixing different socioeconomic classes.
People tend to vote with their feet and their dollars. It's unclear to me how Elk Grove is "worse" than Davis from your description, besides that there are multiple places for lower income to shop closer to metropolitan areas, in this case Sacramento. Skunks aren't unique to Elk Grove, they're n very urban environments too. "Homeless coyotes" might be a unique phenomenon, most are wild.
As a complete outsider, what I don't understand is why there's so much NIMBYism in CA and such strong (and laudable) support for easy immigration. If not for immigration the US population growth would have slowed to a crawl and there would be much less pressure.
I guess housing prices wouldn't rise as quickly, but I doubt that's a big part of the motivation.
I guess housing prices wouldn't rise as quickly, but I doubt that's a big part of the motivation.
As far as I can tell, almost every city in the US is afflicted with NIMBYs.
I'll give a relatively mundane example in Boston, not even about development. A couple years ago, a taco shop under Emerson College wanted to stay open until 2AM. An organized group of busybodies showed up to the meeting to stop it, claiming it would bother the college students (yes, their claim was that a taco shop open until 2AM would bother college students). The city listened and told the shop it has to close by midnight.[0]
Now, it's pretty obvious to me that the majority of people closest to the taco shop would be fine with it being open. I live a 5-10 minute walk from that location and would love it to be open later as well, but I didn't hear about this meeting until the results were already in. These meetings aren't listed anywhere in bulk online, the people in charge seem to be inclined to listen to whoever wants to stop stuff, and the people who want to stop stuff seem to have organized and made it a full-time hobby to attend these meetings.
So a lot of NIMBY sentiment is simply organization rather than a true majority sentiment.
0. https://www.universalhub.com/2020/city-always-sleeps-think-c...
I'll give a relatively mundane example in Boston, not even about development. A couple years ago, a taco shop under Emerson College wanted to stay open until 2AM. An organized group of busybodies showed up to the meeting to stop it, claiming it would bother the college students (yes, their claim was that a taco shop open until 2AM would bother college students). The city listened and told the shop it has to close by midnight.[0]
Now, it's pretty obvious to me that the majority of people closest to the taco shop would be fine with it being open. I live a 5-10 minute walk from that location and would love it to be open later as well, but I didn't hear about this meeting until the results were already in. These meetings aren't listed anywhere in bulk online, the people in charge seem to be inclined to listen to whoever wants to stop stuff, and the people who want to stop stuff seem to have organized and made it a full-time hobby to attend these meetings.
So a lot of NIMBY sentiment is simply organization rather than a true majority sentiment.
0. https://www.universalhub.com/2020/city-always-sleeps-think-c...
They're not for "easy" immigration, they're just against racism.
It's not cool to be racist, so you have to pretend you're just "hard" on immigration, and that people who aren't racist are soft on it.
It makes it confusing to have a conversation about it, when one side can't admit what they actually want.
It's not cool to be racist, so you have to pretend you're just "hard" on immigration, and that people who aren't racist are soft on it.
It makes it confusing to have a conversation about it, when one side can't admit what they actually want.
Have you heard the term “xenophilic restrictionist?”
Nope, but the fact the people who are actually "hard on immigration" had to come up with a new name to distance themselves from the people who are just racist supports my point.
Though, since this is not my first rodeo, I'd suggest at least some portion of those claiming to be “xenophilic restrictionists" will reveal that they are xenophobic, and don't care about restricting the "right kind" of immigration.
As I said, it's not cool to be racist, which confuses matters.
Though, since this is not my first rodeo, I'd suggest at least some portion of those claiming to be “xenophilic restrictionists" will reveal that they are xenophobic, and don't care about restricting the "right kind" of immigration.
As I said, it's not cool to be racist, which confuses matters.
Yes, that makes sense at all. One of the problems in the US is the real estate prices.
I’m surprised there are so many Walmarts as well given the number of NIMBY in EG. my wife went to the med school there and the folks in Stonelake voted against the new hospital.
People around here are not NIMBYS... We are the best consumers American consumer culture has produced. We will shop the shit out of Costco, Walmart, and the hundreds of fast food restaurants you find around here... Shake Shack, Chick-fil-A, BJ's Restaurant... Hell yes, give us more! You'll never see a more /r/hailcorporate post than the NextDoor thread of a new chain restaurant arriving in town.
I think the only reason that hospital failed was because they wanted to build multiple stories... People around here have a strong aversion to tall buildings. That was like their biggest complaint. They were worried the hospital would be able to look over their fence and into their pools. Urban sprawl can't happen if we build up. LOL.
I think the only reason that hospital failed was because they wanted to build multiple stories... People around here have a strong aversion to tall buildings. That was like their biggest complaint. They were worried the hospital would be able to look over their fence and into their pools. Urban sprawl can't happen if we build up. LOL.
It is always fascinating what does and does not raise NIMBY ire. It doesn’t really seem very consistent.
My first guess is hospital = noise (sirens from ambulances coming and going), whereas Walmarts probably only results in increased traffic and at worst more lower income people out and about.
People really dislike noise. There’s a small airport near me that acts as a regional shipping hub amongst other things and a certain demographic (retirees, not working, own home) is very keen on halting and further business development despite the economic benefits it creates for the city because they don’t like the noise of the airplanes overhead. Personally the occasional airplane is significantly less of a nuisance to me than people revving their loud ass motorcycles at night.
People really dislike noise. There’s a small airport near me that acts as a regional shipping hub amongst other things and a certain demographic (retirees, not working, own home) is very keen on halting and further business development despite the economic benefits it creates for the city because they don’t like the noise of the airplanes overhead. Personally the occasional airplane is significantly less of a nuisance to me than people revving their loud ass motorcycles at night.
Having lived 4 blocks from a hospital, it's not the ambulances, it's the helicopters. The house had no air conditioning so it was a choice between sweltering plus barely being able to hear a conversation every 20 minutes vs. not being able to hear a conversation at all or even the TV at max volume.
Scientifically that shit is really bad for you, even when you can tune it out. There is a huge correlation with noise (especially during sleep) and cortisol levels among many other things -- it's a massive unmeasured externality (with cars being the primary cause).
Same goes for airports (but even more true of motorcycle dickheads, coal rollers and ricers which are almost always violating vehicle codes but never see enforcement).
That said, NIMBYism isn't the solution. Far better for something along the lines of noise level based zoning, and require whatever project(s) are responsible for noise pollution to pay into a fund that provides building code enforced sound insulation and climate control upgrades as well as compensation for loss of amenity to anyone that gets rezoned (or can prove ambient noise exceeds their zone).
Scientifically that shit is really bad for you, even when you can tune it out. There is a huge correlation with noise (especially during sleep) and cortisol levels among many other things -- it's a massive unmeasured externality (with cars being the primary cause).
Same goes for airports (but even more true of motorcycle dickheads, coal rollers and ricers which are almost always violating vehicle codes but never see enforcement).
That said, NIMBYism isn't the solution. Far better for something along the lines of noise level based zoning, and require whatever project(s) are responsible for noise pollution to pay into a fund that provides building code enforced sound insulation and climate control upgrades as well as compensation for loss of amenity to anyone that gets rezoned (or can prove ambient noise exceeds their zone).
Hospitals also don't actually need to be foot accessible (assuming you've got like a bus to it). If you wanted to do hospitals right you'd buy up a ring of blocks around the construction and turn the whole area into a park - but good luck getting a private corporation (aka the thing that builds hospitals in the US) to pay for that without a whole lot of municipal pressure.
My ears are tuned to the distinct sound of B-17 engines, and I love it when they come trundling by, usually at low altitude. Last summer an Eagle cruised by, at an altitude of about 6 feet. I could have reached out and brushed its wing as it went by, but I was frozen in awe. I'm under the landing pattern for Seatac, and enjoy the heavies floating by overhead.
I like living in Seattle with all the aircraft around!
I like living in Seattle with all the aircraft around!
I've always assumed that NIMBYism primarily gets its hackles raised as soon as you can't drive to exactly the place you want to go without encountering traffic. As someone who uses public transit and their legs to get around I've found that sort of NIMBYism to breed the most hopelessly useless urban planning.
Yes, it varies somewhat depending on region. Fear of the poors is pretty consistent though, and most NIMBY's are pretty strongly pro-car and anti-not-car.
> While I don't consider myself a NIMBY, because I wouldn't go out of my way to stop a development project, I do appreciate how it has kept Davis a really nice place to live.
It's possible to develop in a way that doesn't involve giant strip malls and tons more cars, y'know. Most YIMBY's are urbanists, and would be much more in favor of supporting walking, biking and transit, rather than cars cars cars.
It's possible to develop in a way that doesn't involve giant strip malls and tons more cars, y'know. Most YIMBY's are urbanists, and would be much more in favor of supporting walking, biking and transit, rather than cars cars cars.
[deleted]
[deleted]
What is "zero-zero-zero-zero"? I tried looking it up and can't see anything relevant in this context.
https://the-big-bang-theory.com/quotes/quote/4391/
"That is my spot. In an ever-changing world, it is a single point of consistency. If my life were expressed as a function on a four-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, that spot at the moment I first sat on it would be zero-zero-zero-zero."
"That is my spot. In an ever-changing world, it is a single point of consistency. If my life were expressed as a function on a four-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, that spot at the moment I first sat on it would be zero-zero-zero-zero."
I don't get it, why does zero-zero-zero-zero mean a single point of consistency?
if the function doesn't change, every point should be consistent, right?
if the function doesn't change, every point should be consistent, right?
Linear transformations can be more easily visualized as scaling coordinate systems - this is actually a pretty easy way to grok what's actually going on with the math. Big bang theory is pointlessly obscure (and uses four dimensions in its zero-zero-zero-zero because apparently four dimensions is enough to be "ooh mysterious" without making anyone feel like a dolt - just use two dimensions guys - everyone has worked with graph paper) but here's an interesting video[1] that sort of touches on the fact that linear transformations (by definition) keep the origin consistent.
1. Just as an aside - 3Blue 1Brown is an amazing resource https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYB8IZa5AuE
1. Just as an aside - 3Blue 1Brown is an amazing resource https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYB8IZa5AuE
It's 4 dimensions for 3D space plus time, as he makes explicit with "at the moment I first sat on it".
That assumes that the world is naturally described in four dimensions (the three primary spacial ones and time) - but that's just a habit of humans. It's perfectly valid to describe space-time in one dimension or, if you're a bosonic string theorist, 26. The habit of identifying three dimensions (and leaving out obvious things like spin) is just one that's indoctrinated into us by our common mode of education. 3+1D is certainly very sensible - but it isn't the only right answer by a long shot. And, again, 2D is much more socially common - going to 4D really just feels like being pointlessly obscure.
thank you for your explanation.
He said function "on" the coordinate system. I read it as "function in the coordinate system".
He said function "on" the coordinate system. I read it as "function in the coordinate system".
Big bang theory is a stupid show that happens to be about smart people. I wouldn't dig into the details.
16 years resident of Davis who just bought a house in nearby Woodland. Davis homes are impossible to afford without two 100k+ salaries. I loved a lot of things about Davis, but this is not one.
edit: for those curious about Davis, visit the wiki: https://localwiki.org/davis/
edit: for those curious about Davis, visit the wiki: https://localwiki.org/davis/
There is one comment on that article, it perfectly reflects what you are saying.
Nice response! I only went to Davis, I was definitely curious what someone living there currently thinks.
I was fortunate to always live in Davis while I went there, but it definitely wasn't inexpensive!
I was fortunate to always live in Davis while I went there, but it definitely wasn't inexpensive!
Time for my favorite Game of Thrones quote:
> Jon Snow: What did father use to say? Everything before the word "but" is horse sh|t.
"I would support something like this [...] but fortunately it's only theoretical, because there are enough NIMBYs to make sure it has no chance of actually happening"
But I know the feeling, that was me one year ago: "I would love to get a Covid vaccine right away, but (fortunately) there are people with higher priorities who have to get it (and field test it) first". But I have to mention that I did get vaccinated eventually...
> Jon Snow: What did father use to say? Everything before the word "but" is horse sh|t.
"I would support something like this [...] but fortunately it's only theoretical, because there are enough NIMBYs to make sure it has no chance of actually happening"
But I know the feeling, that was me one year ago: "I would love to get a Covid vaccine right away, but (fortunately) there are people with higher priorities who have to get it (and field test it) first". But I have to mention that I did get vaccinated eventually...
Yeah, I can see what you are saying here, but there are some of us around here who support more housing. My reaction was based primarily in just how intense and varied the no growth sentiment is in this town. It honestly takes me aback at times. City council meetings can be surreal.
Alas, people who support more housing, only support it if building it requires no tearing down existing structures, no allocating more land for building, and no conversion of existing buildings.
In other words, people support more housing, as long as it doesn't require more housing. You're free to build anywhere, as long as you leave everywhere untouched.
In other words, people support more housing, as long as it doesn't require more housing. You're free to build anywhere, as long as you leave everywhere untouched.
Well, since none of what you just wrote is true of my position, I'm not sure who precisely you are talking about.
[deleted]
> "Because most developers are playing a repeated game with cities, housing applications have historically relied on a lot of goodwill to get through the planning process, and they haven't wanted to upset the apple cart for one big and uncertain return. So there is room for a brash outsider who doesn't care what people or planning staff in Davis think about them."
Thankfully, some developers are starting to become more aggressive. At some point you have to decide that appeasement is more trouble than it's worth, and there is untapped potential for developers who will target pro-housing exceptions rather than try to work with the normal planning bureaucracy. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/How-one-S-F-housing-p...
Thankfully, some developers are starting to become more aggressive. At some point you have to decide that appeasement is more trouble than it's worth, and there is untapped potential for developers who will target pro-housing exceptions rather than try to work with the normal planning bureaucracy. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/How-one-S-F-housing-p...
I'm kind of sick of skyscrapers personally, unless they're necessary, which they are sometimes. An argument for skyscrapers depends on their being a lack of available real estate that could otherwise be used to build many multi-rise or multi-family buildings, but often that space is taken up by parking lots. Take out the fucking surface parking lots, replace them with 5 story tall, pretty to look at and live in buildings, surround them with cafes and stuff and narrow the roads, then talk to me about skyscrapers. While you're at it, give people incentive to upgrade their single family lots to be more productive, and you might create a vibrant community, which you don't really get with skyscrapers as much.
You could build a skyscraper in the middle of my dumb suburban wasteland of the neighborhood I grew up in, but why the hell would I live there when the businesses are all off-the-shelf franchises with giant dusty shitty lots and nobody around to talk to.
Hell, build a skyscraper and surround it by the things I mentioned, that's cool too.
You could build a skyscraper in the middle of my dumb suburban wasteland of the neighborhood I grew up in, but why the hell would I live there when the businesses are all off-the-shelf franchises with giant dusty shitty lots and nobody around to talk to.
Hell, build a skyscraper and surround it by the things I mentioned, that's cool too.
I feel you. NIMBYs always say "well let's build more density downtown" (aka away from me). But this isn't cost effective. The most cost effective is the missing middle, which can be wood construction.
If Davis had made it legal to do any of the things you suggest, they would not be in the position where it's legal to build skyscrapers now.
Kevin (the author) and I worked together around 10 years ago at Atlassian. It’s always great to see his blog posts here!
This one rings home because I moved from SF to Davis during the pandemic. I attended UC Davis around 15 years ago and moved back because it’s a great place to race a family.
I would like to see more infill development here. It’s a shame that so many smart and successful people that work here can’t afford to buy homes here.
I’ve toyed around with the idea of building multi-family housing here. Generally, there are easier places to make money in real estate but I would feel pretty good about making something like this happen.
Crazier things have happened, but if there are other HN readers that would like to chat more about this idea I’ll put my email address in my profile if it’s not there already. I’ve become friends with the realtor that helped me buy a house here (Tanner Mohr) - we’ve previously talked about getting a small group of people together for projects like this. So far we looked at one empty lot, but the seller already had plans for something like I had in mind.
Personally I don’t think I could stomach the risk of trying to build something huge here. That sort of speaks to the point Kevin is making about nimbyism. I certainly wouldn’t want my money tied up in a legal fight. But I could imagine more 4-5 story condos close to campus and downtown doing well here.
This one rings home because I moved from SF to Davis during the pandemic. I attended UC Davis around 15 years ago and moved back because it’s a great place to race a family.
I would like to see more infill development here. It’s a shame that so many smart and successful people that work here can’t afford to buy homes here.
I’ve toyed around with the idea of building multi-family housing here. Generally, there are easier places to make money in real estate but I would feel pretty good about making something like this happen.
Crazier things have happened, but if there are other HN readers that would like to chat more about this idea I’ll put my email address in my profile if it’s not there already. I’ve become friends with the realtor that helped me buy a house here (Tanner Mohr) - we’ve previously talked about getting a small group of people together for projects like this. So far we looked at one empty lot, but the seller already had plans for something like I had in mind.
Personally I don’t think I could stomach the risk of trying to build something huge here. That sort of speaks to the point Kevin is making about nimbyism. I certainly wouldn’t want my money tied up in a legal fight. But I could imagine more 4-5 story condos close to campus and downtown doing well here.
The pro move, at least with a similar law in Massachusetts, is for the developer to threaten a ridiculous skyscraper with 20% low income housing, and then negotiate with the town to instead, out of the grace of their heart, build a more reasonable all market rate building.
Off-topic but I love Davis. It has a smaller-town vibe but is close enough to Downtown Sac that one can go over there for a night out. The local politics are more to my lean than anywhere equidistantly east of Sacramento. It's extremely bike-friendly (most students bike around the town). It's also a little closer to the Bay which is nice for day trips.
Davis is cool if your young. I went to UC Davis and lived there a few years after I graduated. But some of the residents that live there are just something else. Some people hate the college even though they owe everything the town has to the college. I wish it was more affordable.
I lived next to a major university for a decade... I could see how it would be very easy to lose your patience with a university. The core problem is that... you encounter the same problems with students year after year, but they cycle out every so often, so to them, these are new problems.
I found several students passed out in my yard or on my stool steps. Each one was given a medical exam (my partner was a nurse) and a burrito, and a ride home.
I didn't mind the constant parties so much except when i had a kid-- her first year was very tough sleeping and on numerous occasions outrageously loud parties kept her up all night. 2-month-olds don't care if its Halloween or not.
One kid vaguely threatened me saying he had a "party right of way" to do whatever he wanted. I informed him I was a gun owner.
One time a woman directly out my front door was screaming "RAPE! RAPE!" and I felt obligated to interdict.
The ex-wife and I would stay up on nights there was likely to be trouble, having gotten the rhythm of the place after a decade.
That being said, if you kept your wits about yourself it was a really fun place to live, any problems the kids caused were way overshadowed by the vibrancy of the neighborhood.
I found several students passed out in my yard or on my stool steps. Each one was given a medical exam (my partner was a nurse) and a burrito, and a ride home.
I didn't mind the constant parties so much except when i had a kid-- her first year was very tough sleeping and on numerous occasions outrageously loud parties kept her up all night. 2-month-olds don't care if its Halloween or not.
One kid vaguely threatened me saying he had a "party right of way" to do whatever he wanted. I informed him I was a gun owner.
One time a woman directly out my front door was screaming "RAPE! RAPE!" and I felt obligated to interdict.
The ex-wife and I would stay up on nights there was likely to be trouble, having gotten the rhythm of the place after a decade.
That being said, if you kept your wits about yourself it was a really fun place to live, any problems the kids caused were way overshadowed by the vibrancy of the neighborhood.
The nice thing about Davis is it’s still large enough to have suburbs that are primarily families so you don’t end up with drunk kids on your lawn or parties every week :)
> any problems the kids caused were way overshadowed by the vibrancy of the neighborhood.
All that you mentioned looks like features to me, not bugs.
All that you mentioned looks like features to me, not bugs.
Its just the difference in 10-years of aging. I moved to this hip town to be around the fun, then... you get married, have a kid, start a 401k and life is wayyyyy different. My next-door neighbor was in her late 70s, had lived in the town for 40 years and was old and tired for the shenanigans. I imagine if I was that age I might be as well.
> you get married, have a kid, start a 401k and life is wayyyyy different
isn't that why you would move? Can't expect the world to change to suit i reckon.
isn't that why you would move? Can't expect the world to change to suit i reckon.
i too lived a 10 minute walk away from shoreditch while i was working in the City of London. Every other Friday night are partying and shouting and youths on scooters blasting eurodance on speakers and Saturday mornings are the smell of old beer and vomit. It's not shoreditch if it's not. I too would often partake in the merrymaking with my mates after work until the wee hours. Now that i am older that scene is still not mine to deprive others of.
Davis is a college town, with all the positives and negatives that go along with it. It's hard to judge it objectively as a city.
I hate Davis for those reasons. Minus the bike culture with is the best.
Smells like cows, tiny town, Sac is boring, San Francisco is too far.
Smells like cows, tiny town, Sac is boring, San Francisco is too far.
Davis does not smell like cows, unless you are in the student apartments by the aggie farm. I don't know what you are talking about.
It doesn’t smell like cows everywhere :)
But when I ride my bike to the campus farm to buy meat, depending on the weather and perhaps other conditions it might smell like cow shit! It doesn’t happen often though.
That doesn’t really bother me. However, one year when I was in college something happened to the tomato harvest that caused lots of huge flies all over the city. I generally like the weather here and all the other sort of agricultural elements, but that was the one gross think I can think of.
But when I ride my bike to the campus farm to buy meat, depending on the weather and perhaps other conditions it might smell like cow shit! It doesn’t happen often though.
That doesn’t really bother me. However, one year when I was in college something happened to the tomato harvest that caused lots of huge flies all over the city. I generally like the weather here and all the other sort of agricultural elements, but that was the one gross think I can think of.
Munger should move his dorm from UCSB to UCD
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29130378
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29130378
The thing with Charles Munger is somehow worse than the time Linda Katehi let kids get pepper sprayed on the quad. At least hers was a mistake of oversight. Whoever is in charge of UCSB is so desperate for dollars they’re willing to give generations of students depression via architecture. People will probably die because of that, from suicide.
The building he wants to build in UCSB already exists in Michigan and it has the highest ratings of any student dorm there. "In fact the building has a rating of 8.8 out of 10 on veryapt.com. Reviewers praise the building's amenities, including study rooms and a fitness center."
My quality of life at college improved a lot when I switched from having a roommate to getting a single room.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/02/business/munger-residences-mi...
My quality of life at college improved a lot when I switched from having a roommate to getting a single room.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/02/business/munger-residences-mi...
The building in Michigan is in the same style but not as extreme. From what I remember, it has worse ratings than other dorms, and the complaints are about the lack of light.
Not related but in Italy, not too far from my city there is Cesenatico. A small turistic sea city of 26K inhabitants with a skyscraper (from late sixties). https://www.google.it/maps/@44.2011112,12.4049907,3a,90y,144...
It's a solitarie brute tall building but segnale the city center from very far like a Lighthouse
You might want to think twice about the future of the Davis housing market. Remote learning is changing how students get degrees and UC schools are no exception. Online and "hybrid" classes are here to stay at every level. Who wouldn't want a morning class when all you have to do is roll over and open your laptop? This is going to seriously impact demand for housing in Davis. I'd wait and see how enrollments and housing patterns settle out before planning any project.
I'm in university right now, and know a lot of university students. Online learning is not popular, and many students are clamoring to get back to in person classes as soon as they can (many Canadian universities are still primarily remote).
Davis is a gem of an opportunity for myriad reasons. The target market for new housing is not more students, it's more young (and young at heart) professionals. A modern mid-rise within walking distance of downtown would likely sell out before it's even built.
[deleted]
In theory most university courses, especially common ones on the undergrad level such as most mathematics, physics and engineering, could all be replaced by standardized tests. Long tests, sure, but tests you could simply sit for a small fee.
This is not likely to happen though.
This is not likely to happen though.
I can just imagine developers lining up for a decade long legal fight with bonus character assassination in the press for the chance to build impractically expensive housing (that still has to abide by a whole bunch of other restrictions) and then give 20% away below cost.
I take issue with a hard 20% cap on low income units. I'm not against low-income units in general but in practice this is the same exact policy that lead to less affordable housing in SF as a whole. Because these caps were set as hard limits (without equivalent caps on commercial developments) people built office buildings instead of housing which made the problem worse overall...
compare this to a city like Boston where these caps are negotiated and set on a per development basis. As a result, while each new residential building may have proportionally less low-income units, boston as a whole has more affordable units available for rent since more housing was built in the first place due to the flexibility of these caps.
I was born and raised in CA, but for the progressive a state we claim to be, some of these policies are down right counterproductive (despite having great intentions) and should be revisited.
* my source here is I used to rent an apartment from the head of affordable housing commission in boston. If there is published materials that contradict this please correct me!
compare this to a city like Boston where these caps are negotiated and set on a per development basis. As a result, while each new residential building may have proportionally less low-income units, boston as a whole has more affordable units available for rent since more housing was built in the first place due to the flexibility of these caps.
I was born and raised in CA, but for the progressive a state we claim to be, some of these policies are down right counterproductive (despite having great intentions) and should be revisited.
* my source here is I used to rent an apartment from the head of affordable housing commission in boston. If there is published materials that contradict this please correct me!
> this is the same exact policy that lead to less affordable housing in SF as a whole
Cynical take: that's the reason the cap exists
Cynical take: that's the reason the cap exists
And Redondo Beach!? I feel like they buried the lead here. Davis is nice and all but Redondo Beach is nearly twice the price per square foot since it's close to LA and ... on the beach!
This just shows how complex and convoluted zoning and housing laws are. I did not understand a single thing why this is legal now.
The law involved is actually pretty simple.
Localities are incentivized by Prop 13 and many other things to not approve housing. This is good for localities' budgets because people demand more services than office space, but is bad for California if every locality does it because then where will new residents live?
So the state, which is keen to have more residents, requires each locality to "do its part" and accommodate some number of housing. Davis currently doesn't meet these targets, and so state law now overrides local zoning laws to allow any amount of density to be built so that Davis can catch up.
In our federal US system, states are sovereign, so the feds can't just lord it over states, but cities have no such predefined relationship to their state. In fact, all cities only get the powers that states choose to delegate them, which is why state preemption (e.g. "every county must do X" or "no county can do Y" is a thing.)
Localities are incentivized by Prop 13 and many other things to not approve housing. This is good for localities' budgets because people demand more services than office space, but is bad for California if every locality does it because then where will new residents live?
So the state, which is keen to have more residents, requires each locality to "do its part" and accommodate some number of housing. Davis currently doesn't meet these targets, and so state law now overrides local zoning laws to allow any amount of density to be built so that Davis can catch up.
In our federal US system, states are sovereign, so the feds can't just lord it over states, but cities have no such predefined relationship to their state. In fact, all cities only get the powers that states choose to delegate them, which is why state preemption (e.g. "every county must do X" or "no county can do Y" is a thing.)
In Denmark a billionaire wanted to build a 320m skyscraper - the tallest in western europe - in the small town Brande (population 7000). https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/apr/01/like-the-eye-...
It was however shelved recently.
It was however shelved recently.
A skyscraper in a tiny town sounds like a tricky thing to do. Those buildings require a lot of supporting infrastructure that is expensive if you only run it for a single building.
I disagree... All the infrastructure scales with the population supported. It doesn't matter if it's 2000 people living in a huge 500-flat skyscraper or 2000 people living in 10 streets 50 houses long.
They're all gonna need the same amount of parking, parks, shops, employment, education, entertainment, etc. They'll also pay the same taxes to fund all that stuff.
The construction effort or materials of a skyscraper probably isn't much different to 10 streets of 50 houses either.
They're all gonna need the same amount of parking, parks, shops, employment, education, entertainment, etc. They'll also pay the same taxes to fund all that stuff.
The construction effort or materials of a skyscraper probably isn't much different to 10 streets of 50 houses either.
> I disagree... All the infrastructure scales with the population supported. It doesn't matter if it's 2000 people living in a huge 500-flat skyscraper or 2000 people living in 10 streets 50 houses long.
It does. Because a Skyscraper needs infrastructure which flat houses do not (Special water pumps, specially trained firefighters, support for rapid evacuation). Having a lot of people in one tall building creates challenges that a small town is not ready for.
It does. Because a Skyscraper needs infrastructure which flat houses do not (Special water pumps, specially trained firefighters, support for rapid evacuation). Having a lot of people in one tall building creates challenges that a small town is not ready for.
For anyone who doesn't know the term (I didn't), NIMBY[0] stands for "not in my backyard" and refers to people who are anti-development/change close to them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY?wprov=sfti1
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY?wprov=sfti1
Genuinely curious if you could make more money as a developer purposefully pissing off zoning authorities in California rather than trying to keep them happy. The state has such a long history of purposefully trying to stop development that it doesn’t seem to me like playing nice is a successful strategy.
Davis is primarily a college town. Is there enough demand to fill up a skyscraper?
If you price it for the college crowd, absolutely. The university keeps expanding, a lot of first-year housing is becoming triples, and then after the first year most students move off-campus.
Of course, any new construction won't be priced toward that crowd. But yes the demand could feasibly exist.
Of course, any new construction won't be priced toward that crowd. But yes the demand could feasibly exist.
The real issue is that Davis is farm country.
Taller buildings cost somewhat more per square foot. You need a stronger foundation and building materials, past a certain height you need pumps for water and things like that.
That's worth the cost where land is expensive and you're building a 30 story building next to a bunch of 15 story buildings you'd otherwise have to knock down. When you're building next to cows, you just build five story buildings or two story buildings and build more of them, because the land isn't that expensive.
This is presumably why it's easier to pass there. Not going to be a lot of takers on the skyscrapers.
Though it could still be useful if you get some five story buildings where there might have only been single family homes.
Taller buildings cost somewhat more per square foot. You need a stronger foundation and building materials, past a certain height you need pumps for water and things like that.
That's worth the cost where land is expensive and you're building a 30 story building next to a bunch of 15 story buildings you'd otherwise have to knock down. When you're building next to cows, you just build five story buildings or two story buildings and build more of them, because the land isn't that expensive.
This is presumably why it's easier to pass there. Not going to be a lot of takers on the skyscrapers.
Though it could still be useful if you get some five story buildings where there might have only been single family homes.
True, though, you could potentially buy land near downtown at single family home prices, which would help.
Also the same rules currently apply in Redondo Beach which is a little bit more expensive.
Also the same rules currently apply in Redondo Beach which is a little bit more expensive.
Depends what a skyscraper means these days.
My school has a third the enrollment of davis and has two 12 story residential towers plus a smaller one (or something, they've been doing a lot of construction), so assuming everything is like for like (which is a terible assumption), you could have similar housing for Davis with a 72 story tower. That's definitely a skyscraper, although not in competition for any height prizes.
Usually something that big will be in a dense urban core though. My impression is that Davis doesn't have the density where it makes economic sense to build that high. Probably would be easier and cheaper to do something around 10 stories, maybe with a large footprint.
My school has a third the enrollment of davis and has two 12 story residential towers plus a smaller one (or something, they've been doing a lot of construction), so assuming everything is like for like (which is a terible assumption), you could have similar housing for Davis with a 72 story tower. That's definitely a skyscraper, although not in competition for any height prizes.
Usually something that big will be in a dense urban core though. My impression is that Davis doesn't have the density where it makes economic sense to build that high. Probably would be easier and cheaper to do something around 10 stories, maybe with a large footprint.
I think it's more realistic to build a bunch of 10-20 story buildings in Davis than a single 72 story one. The engineering is much easier.
A single skyscraper doesn't hold that many people, does it? Davis is a town of 65k, with a major state university there that has something like 40k students (and then all the employees), so it's not exactly a small town.
Sure, there's no density-based law, but you could just make the fire egress rules onerous and there'd be an army of disingenuous people arguing that you don't care about safety. Here's a quick one: every building under 3 stories must have two independent egress mechanisms, for every story taller they must have one additional egress path per story.
Done.
There are no loopholes for you because you are not a friend. The system intentionally is all based on human to human trust because that allows complete discretion, and therefore abuse. You can't rules lawyer it. They will simply wait you out because they pick the wait period and they're paid to wait and you pay to wait.
Done.
There are no loopholes for you because you are not a friend. The system intentionally is all based on human to human trust because that allows complete discretion, and therefore abuse. You can't rules lawyer it. They will simply wait you out because they pick the wait period and they're paid to wait and you pay to wait.
My understanding (not legal advice!) is rules that preclude development at a given density would not be enforceable especially if they deviate from e.g. the International Builders Code, unless you could make some case that Davis was uniquely susceptible to fires, which it isn’t.
Like Los Altos Hills could mandate that new apartments be covered in real gold, but they don’t do that.
Like Los Altos Hills could mandate that new apartments be covered in real gold, but they don’t do that.
No, but we have plenty of other policies designed to prevent construction. Like having needlessly complicated and subjective lot coverage rules where simple objective ones would work fine. Or nerfing SB-9. Our town government also extorts conservation easements out of folks in exchange for permits.
I've been struggling for two years just to fix a leaky roof. When my town fails to get an approved Housing Element, I'll probably build condos out of spite. And move to a red state so I have some property rights and better ROI on taxes.
I've been struggling for two years just to fix a leaky roof. When my town fails to get an approved Housing Element, I'll probably build condos out of spite. And move to a red state so I have some property rights and better ROI on taxes.
At least for the "complete discretion", California has the "Housing Accountability Act", which roughly says cities have 60 days to approve developments that contain 20% low-income housing. If they deny it, it must be for an "objective, quantifiable, written development" policy.
It's not much, requiring cities to have their housing rules written down ahead of time. But it is enough the organizations like CaRLA are having some success suing cities for capriciously denying housing.
https://carlaef.org/category/legal-action/housing-accountabi...
It's not much, requiring cities to have their housing rules written down ahead of time. But it is enough the organizations like CaRLA are having some success suing cities for capriciously denying housing.
https://carlaef.org/category/legal-action/housing-accountabi...
> Here's a quick one: every building under 3 stories must have two independent egress mechanisms, for every story taller they must have one additional egress path per story.
In that case they would just have to ban buildings over three stories, no strange egress requirements needed.
That would in turn get tested against state laws.
No doubt there are plenty of anti-density regulations on the books, like cities with minimum lot sizes in the SF Peninsula, but it would be challenging to pass those regulations now in California.
In that case they would just have to ban buildings over three stories, no strange egress requirements needed.
That would in turn get tested against state laws.
No doubt there are plenty of anti-density regulations on the books, like cities with minimum lot sizes in the SF Peninsula, but it would be challenging to pass those regulations now in California.
The state government is pretty explicitly anti-NIMBY / pro-density (relatively speaking) right now, so bad-faith attempts to restrict growth like that might not go over well.
I doubt the state government has any real power. My city just banned housing development on a valet parking lot saying it would cause gentrification.
If you’re referring to San Francisco, the city is on track to be sued under state law for that denial. It is also being investigated by the state for it.
I’m sure they’ll back off around the time the developer has spent too much money to make the project viable. In fact, I’ll do you one better. I’ll bet $1k that two years from now, no residential building will exist on that lot.
The classic move, not just in California but everywhere, is a lawsuit about the "environmental impact" of the project on some kind of local wildlife.
Davis has a somewhat famous precedent for that too: https://localwiki.org/davis/Toad_Tunnel
Davis has a somewhat famous precedent for that too: https://localwiki.org/davis/Toad_Tunnel
> on some kind of local wildlife
Wildlife?? Oh sure, "environmental impact" can be about wildlife and the environment, but it could also be as minimal as traffic patterns and aesthetics. That's why just about anyone can get in on the California environmental review process and go through several rounds of delays in hopes of extorting something from you, and a key reason California has trouble building anything.
On the other hand, "omg! birds running into the windows!" is as good a start as any.
Wildlife?? Oh sure, "environmental impact" can be about wildlife and the environment, but it could also be as minimal as traffic patterns and aesthetics. That's why just about anyone can get in on the California environmental review process and go through several rounds of delays in hopes of extorting something from you, and a key reason California has trouble building anything.
On the other hand, "omg! birds running into the windows!" is as good a start as any.
CEQA needs to be repealed. It seems to have accidentally acquired scope far beyond what its writers intended.
Do college students count as low-income?
If it’s federal section 8 requirements, then no. Full time students or being under 24 disqualifies eligibility.
That seems inherently discriminatory based on age and based on what they choose to do with their time and what little money is had by thkse who would otherwise qualify.
It's a hard problem. Many students have very low income on paper, but also have options that poor non-students don't. There's low-cost housing available only to students. There's parental money - not for all, certainly wasn't for me personally, but for many. There's student loans. It would be unfair to those poor non-students to use the same classification for students based only on their paper income. The exclusions that exist might be imperfect, but they also close loopholes that would defeat the whole purpose of ensuring availability of housing for low-income people in general.
Not providing limited public services to individuals that have other options is the sort of discrimination demanded by taxpayers.
Taxing the nearly 2/3 of taxpayers without a degree to fund the housing of university students doesn't seem egalitarian.
Taxing the nearly 2/3 of taxpayers without a degree to fund the housing of university students doesn't seem egalitarian.
Sounds like investing in upskilling the next generation to me.
Some are, others have more money to spend than many people with full time jobs.
Fair housing... I just don't think it's very useful or even fair. I don't like it that I paid solid money and worked for years to pay off my debts whereas the neighbor lives in a similar appartment for free. Why not allow cities to drop that requirement if they go over the norm by 50%?
Historically cities throughout the state have added new density in their lowest income, most polluted neighborhoods, with the worst schools. In San Francisco for example big developments are planned for Treasure Island and Candlestick Point but not so much for Noe Valley. Of course you also have the issue that a lot of the low density, high quality neighborhoods were redlined - the FHA would not guarantee loans to minorities in the best neighborhoods so white families got a huge head start in the housing market and higher yearly appreciation that they could then pass to their kids.
The idea is that this is not fair - it’s not so much about subsidies for individual people but the fact that if you’re born in 2000 vs. 1980 you’re much more likely to live in a polluted area because the population is bigger now and that’s where we’ve been adding the housing.
Fair housing laws are about adding more housing in the areas of your town that have historically been unwelcoming to minorities and have less pollution and better schools.
Also it’s bad for public health to have many more people living in polluted areas, bad for social mobility to increase the student count at the worst schools instead of the best schools, etc.
The idea is that this is not fair - it’s not so much about subsidies for individual people but the fact that if you’re born in 2000 vs. 1980 you’re much more likely to live in a polluted area because the population is bigger now and that’s where we’ve been adding the housing.
Fair housing laws are about adding more housing in the areas of your town that have historically been unwelcoming to minorities and have less pollution and better schools.
Also it’s bad for public health to have many more people living in polluted areas, bad for social mobility to increase the student count at the worst schools instead of the best schools, etc.
I don't think anyone should have to live in a seriously polluted area. Strange that us policymakers would choose to allow or even promote that. My brother lives near a factory and in his area certain cancers are more common. Still the young are better equipped to handle such conditions than the old.
I used to feel this way. I was earning just above minimum wage, working 12 hour days 6 days a week, meanwhile my mate was living on benefits, and after all essential bills were paid (rent, electric, water, heating), he had more disposable income left over each month than I did.
It was really quite upsetting to think that despite not even having a job, he effectively "made" more money than I did.
Then I thoguht it through a little more, and realised that was as good as his life would ever get unless he did something to change it.
TL;DR: I don't begrudge people who are able to subsist and are happy at that level. Even if it means they get what can appear to be nicer accommodation than what I'm paying for at that time. I'm not wired that way. I want more.
It was really quite upsetting to think that despite not even having a job, he effectively "made" more money than I did.
Then I thoguht it through a little more, and realised that was as good as his life would ever get unless he did something to change it.
TL;DR: I don't begrudge people who are able to subsist and are happy at that level. Even if it means they get what can appear to be nicer accommodation than what I'm paying for at that time. I'm not wired that way. I want more.
I never moved up so for me it's a little harder to accept.
> possibly additional cities in the Bay Area, soon.
Curious to know which ones.
Curious to know which ones.
It would depend on which cities actually try to meet their housing allocation - RHNA - and which try the same sort of bad faith stuff that Davis did. San Francisco is a very likely candidate and some of the richer suburbs - San Mateo, Palo Alto, Orinda - but it’s still very early in the process.
(The submissions are staggered across the state; the Bay Area’s deadline is later than Yolo County’s.)
(The submissions are staggered across the state; the Bay Area’s deadline is later than Yolo County’s.)
At least part of SF is already there, and as posted elsewhere here, at least one developer is taking a crack at using the state code as intended.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/How-one-S-F-housing-p...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/How-one-S-F-housing-p...
That's a really neat project, but it's using a different state law than the one in the article; the project there is using density bonuses, but does not have unlimited density.
However, if San Francisco does not submit a valid Housing Element by the end of the year, then unlimited density could potentially be available on any lot in the city.
However, if San Francisco does not submit a valid Housing Element by the end of the year, then unlimited density could potentially be available on any lot in the city.
We need more housing at all levels. I don't think mandatory low income housing is a scalable solution and instead just raises the prices on the other units exacerbating the problem. Let supply meet demand.
[deleted]
> I know a lot of venture capitalists who hate California NIMBYism, care about climate change
lol citation please!
lol citation please!
They’ve been building tons of apartments in Davis. Tons. I’m afraid of oversupply if the college becomes less popular.
Per censusreporter.org, Davis had about 29,500 homes in 2019: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US22420-davis-ca-ur...
Per California HCD, Davis issued permits for about 1350 homes between 2013 and 2020, or roughly, Davis grew by about 4.5% in that time frame.
California grew its population by about 6% between 2010 and 2020 and the total housing stock by about 5.2% which puts Davis at just about average in terms of construction, far from "tons." https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/califo...
Per California HCD, Davis issued permits for about 1350 homes between 2013 and 2020, or roughly, Davis grew by about 4.5% in that time frame.
California grew its population by about 6% between 2010 and 2020 and the total housing stock by about 5.2% which puts Davis at just about average in terms of construction, far from "tons." https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/califo...
To be fair, UCD has built a ton of new student housing in that time frame, including the entire West Village complex. That may be what they are thinking of, even though I don't think that would be included in the town of Davis numbers.
I lived in Davis. Have you ever even been to Davis? They are building gigantic monoliths of apartment buildings everywhere you look. Maybe check your sources again.
This is hilarious to me.
"Oh, the data says I'm wrong? Well, check your data again I guess.
What, provide my own data? As if!"
"Oh, the data says I'm wrong? Well, check your data again I guess.
What, provide my own data? As if!"
Your data probably excludes student housing. You made a mistake
labster(1)
Anyone who believes dense housing will lower rent or home prices has never been to a city with dense housing
Tokyo is waayyyy cheaper to rent in than comparably prosperous/important cities in the US like NYC or SF.
It's a metro of 40 million that's nationally important on a level unseen in the US -- it's like you took NYC and SF and LA and combined them all into one megacity. And yet rent prices there are...well, they're still somewhat expensive, but less so than you'd expect, definitely.
NYC is more than 2x as expensive as Tokyo for rent: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
This is particularly true if you look at the case of a 1 bedroom commuter (not in city center) apartment: $2200 in NYC, $700 in Tokyo. Almost like letting people building housing supply to meet demand actually works.
It's a metro of 40 million that's nationally important on a level unseen in the US -- it's like you took NYC and SF and LA and combined them all into one megacity. And yet rent prices there are...well, they're still somewhat expensive, but less so than you'd expect, definitely.
NYC is more than 2x as expensive as Tokyo for rent: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
This is particularly true if you look at the case of a 1 bedroom commuter (not in city center) apartment: $2200 in NYC, $700 in Tokyo. Almost like letting people building housing supply to meet demand actually works.
That’s because Tokyo is not as dense, because he’s also huge by area.
The Greater Tokyo Area (and you have to take the whole area into account when talking about affordable housing) is about 5400 square miles, slightly larger than Connecticut, about 7 times the size of New York City, and still twice the size of the Bay Area.
Tokyo "feels" knit closer together mostly because they don't suck at public transport.
Tokyo "feels" knit closer together mostly because they don't suck at public transport.
A large portion of "Tokyo" includes mountainous areas where nobody lives. In any case, even if you expand your NYC search to include nearby parts of Jersey or whatnot, you're not gonna find $700 1br's as a common thing.
And then if you look at the Bay Area having a low overall population density but it's still really expensive, it's pretty obvious what needs to happen.
And then if you look at the Bay Area having a low overall population density but it's still really expensive, it's pretty obvious what needs to happen.
And has population density of 2,631/km2 compared to Bay Area's 431/km2.
What's your point?
What's your point?
Buy a single family home, tear it down and construct a fourplex, sell each unit of the fourplex for less than the single family home cost to purchase. Congrats, you have lowered home prices by adding dense housing.
Ever been to NYC?
Yes, New York is expensive because it doesn't build enough housing. Per capita, New York builds less new housing than California (1.8 permits per 1000 residents vs. 2.7 permits), and that's saying something, because California does not build a lot of housing. New construction in NYC is opposed by residents who are opposed to the Manhattanization of Manhattan. Michael Bloomberg significantly downzoned the city while he was in office.
Tokyo is even bigger than New York, and you can rent a one bedroom in the heart of downtown for $1,000 a month, because they actually build a lot of new housing there.
"New York City issued fewer housing unit permits on a per capita basis than nearly every other large city, including not only fast-growing Seattle and Austin, but also cities that face similar constraints to development. New York issued permits for 40 percent fewer units per capita than San Francisco, half as many as Boston, and nearly two-thirds less than Washington, D.C. New York also lags on other metrics like the net change in the number of housing units."
https://cbcny.org/research/strategies-boost-housing-producti...
Tokyo is even bigger than New York, and you can rent a one bedroom in the heart of downtown for $1,000 a month, because they actually build a lot of new housing there.
"New York City issued fewer housing unit permits on a per capita basis than nearly every other large city, including not only fast-growing Seattle and Austin, but also cities that face similar constraints to development. New York issued permits for 40 percent fewer units per capita than San Francisco, half as many as Boston, and nearly two-thirds less than Washington, D.C. New York also lags on other metrics like the net change in the number of housing units."
https://cbcny.org/research/strategies-boost-housing-producti...
Well there ya go
Are you talking about the place that made 40% of the buildings in Manhattan illegal by passing stricter zoning regulations? That NYC?
Dense prosperous cities do attract population inflows, but this validates that they are good places to be.
As the world (not US) urbanizes and population growth slows, we could perhaps reach a dense urban equilibrium, but until then cities must continue to grow, even if they are already dense.
As the world (not US) urbanizes and population growth slows, we could perhaps reach a dense urban equilibrium, but until then cities must continue to grow, even if they are already dense.
Though no one has tried this yet, there is a loop-hole in the Davis law that says very tall buildings are legal anywhere. The author wants a brash, no holds bared kind of real estate investor to push the boundaries and try this for real.
Not by Davis law (quite the opposite!), nor by loophole: this is explicit intent of California law passed in the 90s to try to stop NIMBYism and increase housing production (though in the past it just gave NIMBYs a shield to hide behind by zoning things they knew would never get developed as high density so they could abide by the letter of the law and not the spirit, until it was revamped to take into account likelihood of redevelopment in high income areas in 2019). Davis's zoning is noncompliant with state housing allocations, and as punishment, they are legally required to accept any housing without regard to density or height limit that is 20% affordable _until they are compliant again_.
Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Palo Alto, Cupertino, and (my favorite) Atherton, will also soon see their housing limits invalidated as noncompliant, based on their current (bad-faith) plans they're trying to squeak by, and in _those_ markets, I guarantee you someone _will_ try to take advantage of it. Maybe not as skyscrapers, but as fourplexes, 10-plexes, and missing middle housing this state so desperately needs in affluent areas. As an example: Beverly Hills is now required to zone 3096 net-new housing units that are likely to be re-developed in the next 10 years. Last year they zoned... 4. Good luck fudging that!)
This is a return to market-based development, too, and not some government intervention: real estate developers still aren't going to build where it doesn't make sense to, but now they'll have some of the red tape artificially holding development back removed in places where it does make sense.
Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Palo Alto, Cupertino, and (my favorite) Atherton, will also soon see their housing limits invalidated as noncompliant, based on their current (bad-faith) plans they're trying to squeak by, and in _those_ markets, I guarantee you someone _will_ try to take advantage of it. Maybe not as skyscrapers, but as fourplexes, 10-plexes, and missing middle housing this state so desperately needs in affluent areas. As an example: Beverly Hills is now required to zone 3096 net-new housing units that are likely to be re-developed in the next 10 years. Last year they zoned... 4. Good luck fudging that!)
This is a return to market-based development, too, and not some government intervention: real estate developers still aren't going to build where it doesn't make sense to, but now they'll have some of the red tape artificially holding development back removed in places where it does make sense.
It's certainly an interesting proposition! In general, Davis has been very very NIMBY for the city center, just getting a Target on the very outskirts of city limits around 2010.
I love the brash interesting solution the author has brought up! It's how we move into the future, trying new things. Is it the right thing for Davis? Probably not, but it sure would be interesting.
I struggle between novelty, interesting, and sustainable. :)
I love the brash interesting solution the author has brought up! It's how we move into the future, trying new things. Is it the right thing for Davis? Probably not, but it sure would be interesting.
I struggle between novelty, interesting, and sustainable. :)
To be clear, you don't have to build a skyscraper, you could build a "5-over-1" (5 floors of apartments over ground floor retail) which would not be out of place at all in Davis. One of the earliest test cases for the law was just a guy who wanted to build an ADU without also building two parking spaces for it, back when that was legal for cities to require. https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1474286668936998914
It's just that you probably want the biggest building possible so the potential profit is worth the years of delay while inevitable legal challenges and possibly an EIR work their way through the courts and planning process.
It's just that you probably want the biggest building possible so the potential profit is worth the years of delay while inevitable legal challenges and possibly an EIR work their way through the courts and planning process.
Pedant time! "5-over-1" doesn't refer to five floors of residential over one floor of retail, but any configuration of timber stick construction (IBC Type 5) over a concrete podium (IBC Type 1). Thus, you can have a 5-over-1 that's only 4 stories, or a 5-over-1 that's all residential, etc.
Wikipedia says the proliferation of these 4 and 5 stories of wood construction above 1 story of steel/masonry happened because of a 2009 revision to the International Building Code.
If that is true, then it would seem like one plus five, one plus four, 5 over 1, and 4 over 1 buildings would refer to how many wood floors the building has above the first floor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
I do not know how good the source is for Wikipedia, but I have only ever seen 5 and 6 story buildings, and never 7 or more stories with the first floor having masonry/steel and then wood for the rest.
If that is true, then it would seem like one plus five, one plus four, 5 over 1, and 4 over 1 buildings would refer to how many wood floors the building has above the first floor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
I do not know how good the source is for Wikipedia, but I have only ever seen 5 and 6 story buildings, and never 7 or more stories with the first floor having masonry/steel and then wood for the rest.
You are correct that these buildings were only made possible due to changes in the code as to how many timber stories you could build, and the max is 5 stories. But my point was that they're not called that because they're 5 stories.
Correct, but the law at issue is specifically about housing needs, so you’d need to build apartments in this case, you couldn’t build commercial.
That was very informative pedantry; thanks!
TIL.
Thank you for the more detailed thought! I wasn't sure how tall it would have to be to be a 'skyscraper', but a 5 over 1 seems like a useful building in Davis.
> It's just that you probably want the biggest building possible
...to maximize the loss when the lack of local infrastructure to support people using a building of that size makes it impossible to sell or lease space in it.
There's still giant holes in the ground from abandoned skyscrapers the Sacramento market wouldn't support a decade ago, and that was a place not obviously insane for them.
...to maximize the loss when the lack of local infrastructure to support people using a building of that size makes it impossible to sell or lease space in it.
There's still giant holes in the ground from abandoned skyscrapers the Sacramento market wouldn't support a decade ago, and that was a place not obviously insane for them.
This law wouldn't exempt you from paying any impact fees that Davis charged to e.g. support additional school or water infrastructure.
I'll also note that the alternative to infill housing is single family home suburban sprawl, which is a lot more taxing infrastructure wise - apartment dwellers use less water, less electricity, and are less likely to own a car than suburban single family homeowners. Further the consequence of less homebuilding in California is more homebuilding in places like Texas, which are a lot less friendly for the environment.
I'll also note that the alternative to infill housing is single family home suburban sprawl, which is a lot more taxing infrastructure wise - apartment dwellers use less water, less electricity, and are less likely to own a car than suburban single family homeowners. Further the consequence of less homebuilding in California is more homebuilding in places like Texas, which are a lot less friendly for the environment.
> Davis has been very very NIMBY for the city center, just getting a Target on the very outskirts of city limits around 2010.
The only reason Target had to be that far out is no place in the city center area had space for the literal sea of parking Target wanted. It's had major chains much closer to downtown for a long time (Borders and then Whole Foods right in downtown, Gottschalks at UMall until the chain went bankrupt in 2009, etc.)
The only reason Target had to be that far out is no place in the city center area had space for the literal sea of parking Target wanted. It's had major chains much closer to downtown for a long time (Borders and then Whole Foods right in downtown, Gottschalks at UMall until the chain went bankrupt in 2009, etc.)
That is a very good point that I didn't think of when I went there. You're definitely right, I don't know where they would've built that big of a building closer to the core. Thank you!
It is also was built on super fund site. I still will not understand why Davis and other places are ok with a Target but will die before getting a Walmart. It is very impressive how target is able to pretend like they treat there employees any better..
> I still will not understand why Davis and other places are ok with a Target but will die before getting a Walmart.
It's all about social class. There's no website dedicated to calling people who shop at Target landwhales.
It's all about social class. There's no website dedicated to calling people who shop at Target landwhales.
>I still will not understand why Davis and other places are ok with a Target but will die before getting a Walmart.
It's the cachet of having the French store[0] in the area, over one that's from flyover-country. ;)
[0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tarjay
It's the cachet of having the French store[0] in the area, over one that's from flyover-country. ;)
[0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tarjay
Too bad nothing in the plaza where the Borders and WF used to be ever stays open. Everything that opens there closes after 5 years.
> the Davis law that says very tall buildings are legal anywhere
But theres also no law stating this would be profitable, even as a oneoff
But theres also no law stating this would be profitable, even as a oneoff
Was doing to do a post on this tomorrow but my guess is construction costs would be around $300 per square foot and new condo construction downtown is probably getting about $500/square foot. Also you’d be offering something that’s not on the market - a 30th floor view or whatever - and people might pay a lot for that. So I think that it’s not unreasonable, at least based on back of the envelope math.
> Also you’d be offering something that’s not on the market - a 30th floor view or whatever
Does Davis have anything worth seeing? The Central Valley is all flat farmland with the dry side of some mountains in the distance.
Does Davis have anything worth seeing? The Central Valley is all flat farmland with the dry side of some mountains in the distance.
Surely you have a mistaken factor of 1000 in there?
yes - thank you - edited the comment.
Are there suitable lots available?
This is an accurate summary. It shouldn’t be downvoted.
It's actually not accurate at all, so it's good that it's being downvoted.
Oh? What do you think is inaccurate?
It's not a loophole. It's an intended part of the regulations at play.
Oh, fair enough.
Giant towers full of low-income housing is actually something we've tried before. Over and over. https://newsone.com/1555245/most-infamous-public-housing-pro...
A lot of issues here, and the historic placement of public housing was often set up to fail (cut off from the rest of the city by freeways, for example, and then underfunded), but I'll just note that housing is so expensive now that a family making $74,000 qualifies as "low income" in Yolo County. https://www.yolocounty.org/home/showdocument?id=66968
There's no requirement that the developer is a public agency and only 20% of the apartments must be made available to families making $74,000 or less.
This is far into the salary scale for Davis School District educators, for example. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1593632639/davisk12u...
There's no requirement that the developer is a public agency and only 20% of the apartments must be made available to families making $74,000 or less.
This is far into the salary scale for Davis School District educators, for example. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1593632639/davisk12u...
Using the 30% requirement for below-market-rate rents, that's $1850/month for an apartment, which could go pay for nearly $400,000 of construction costs. Which could be a fairly large apartment, actually!
Time to start working through some pro-formas, this might have a lot of potential.
Prop 13 typically makes it really really hard for new landlords to compete, since long-time landlords pay nearly zero in taxes, but this might actually pencil.
Time to start working through some pro-formas, this might have a lot of potential.
Prop 13 typically makes it really really hard for new landlords to compete, since long-time landlords pay nearly zero in taxes, but this might actually pencil.
Crime in inner cities was really high in general at the same time most of those projects were built so there's a large number of confounding factors. It's likely many of the residents would have otherwise been homeless and still living in violence.
Plus modern design philosophy solves many of the issues by making the common/public areas more visible rather than less. Also cameras/CCTV are so cheap now there's little chance of serious violent crime occurring.
Plus modern design philosophy solves many of the issues by making the common/public areas more visible rather than less. Also cameras/CCTV are so cheap now there's little chance of serious violent crime occurring.
And they are certainly better than forcing people to live in homeless camps (I write this as someone who’s neighborhood had both public housing and tents).
Public housing has worked in Singapore and Vienna.
Instead of declaring our surrender, why don't we learn from the places that got it right?
Instead of declaring our surrender, why don't we learn from the places that got it right?
20% low income housing (and we're not talking about dirt poor people but people with solid middle class jobs)is hardly giant towers full of low income housing.
But I do have to be realistic, the Nimby feelings in this town are VERY strong. Everybody who buys a house here seems to feel the town should stay exactly the way it was on the day after they arrived, without any recognition of how blinkered that is. The legal fight against something like this would be intense, to say the least. It would require a developer with great lawyers, very deep pockets and the thickest of skins.