In no particular order:
* This is a excellent suburban housing proposal; the main question to me is generally whether suburbia is a failed model or not, and specifically if it is a failed model in the long run, whether a good suburban project is still worth building for the short-to-medium run. Personally, I think new urbanist transit-oriented walkable mixed-use multistory housing focused in the downtown core (and to a lesser degree, centered on all the neighborhood shopping mall commercial centers) would be much, much smarter than this. This project, at best, is really an attempt to set a higher standard for low-density suburban peripheral growth. And it does, but it impresses me less than the planning for the southern, mixed zoning, higher density portion of Covell Village, ironically enough.
*One criticism I have seen is that the developer's claims for 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions claims only make sense seen in relation to other future housing developments, not measured from a no growth zero point. Of course, what everyone means when they say "no growth" is that any overall county or regional population growth would be displaced elsewhere in the region (Woodland, West Sac, Dixon or Sacramento), which would most likely not be as energy-efficient as this project. Given that a huge chunk of our carbon emissions come from our housing (in the form of the fossil energy expended for lighting, appliances, heating and cooling), it isn’t entirely unreasonable for the Yes on P folks to be promoting this point like crazy. Of course what is needed even more than one small housing project is a broader crash course effort to retrofit existing housing stock with better insulation, windows, energy-efficient appliances, energy-intelligent landscaping, solar electric/hot water panels, etc. so that we aren’t just cutting 5-600 houses' worth of carbon emissions, but this is a start of sorts. On the other hand, the peripheral location of Wildhorse Ranch makes it hard to deal with a major source of carbon emissions, which is oil-burning car transportation in weekly commutes plus running errands around town. The proximity to neighborhood schools helps a bit, but the location really isn't ideal.
*Almost as important as the greenhouse gas stuff for drought-prone California are the water/drainage features built into this project. I find it ironic that a lot of the stuff they're hyping here was cutting edge
a generation ago in Village Homes but at least they’re going back to a good idea, 30 some-odd years later. Bioswales, porous cement, and open space doubling as drainage and habitat are all great ideas, and keep the runoff from flooding our storm drain system by soaking it back into the water table. I love walking along the drainage ponds north of Arlington and watching the birds, there should be more of that sort of thing. The use of an agricultural well for landscaping water is interesting, although I wish there was more greywater recycling in the plan. Keeping the streets narrow will help a lot with water absorption as well (although it should be noted, less so than just keeping it as open space.
* As before, I am struck by how much Davis city politics – especially on matters of housing and growth – presume an affluent middle-aged homeowner audience.
* One of the more persuasive arguments IMO is that this project builds for a different type of homebuyer than was previously the case. There is huge pent-up housing demand – both for owner-occupied and rental housing – in this town for young people, recently graduated students, faculty and the workforce who do much of the work in all those shops and restaurants in our lauded downtown shopping area. But most of the housing this town actually builds is luxury stuff targeted at rich out of town yuppie commuters with equity. While the university West Village project should help with student and professor housing, that still leaves a lot of pent-up demand for people who aren’t rolling in equity to buy or rent homes in town, but who don’t need or want McMansions. This project claims that it would satisfy that demand. As I look at the housing plan on the city of Davis site, this seems about right.
*The location of this place is pretty good for parks and schools. Birch Lane, Slide Hill, Harper and Korematsu are really not all that far away by bike. It would have been better if the Wildhorse NIMBYs hadn't forced the developer to strip the commercial zoning out of the original plan, though.
*I’m amazed at the coalition of people who normally badmouth sprawl, suburban development, the "developer-friendly council majority," and developers generally who are coming out for this one, using the
exact same language that the Yes on Covell Village folks used. Total through the looking glass stuff. All I can figure is that so-called progressives in town must really dislike Mike Corbett, for reasons I cannot fathom. Is there some developer vs. developer pissing war behind the scenes that I’m not privy to? Why the sudden turnaround on this, guys?
* I still have not seen any explanation for why we need to vote on this particular project in a special election, with all the attending costs. Especially in a very weak housing market, this seems like the textbook definition of something that should be scheduled to be on the next general election, for convenience and thrift's case. And on the matter of thrift, whatever happened to Freddie Oakley's threat to move the city to a 100% vote-by-mail system, to save money?
*The one really clear thing that comes out of reading through the Yes on P web site’s explanation of how they accommodated neighborhood concerns is that the paradigm of late 20th century suburban sprawl is still as ruthlessly determined to block anything different from itself as ever. Note the neighborhood concerns about the original proposal: low income housing mixed with mid-income housing, owner-occupied units being rented out to renters, tall buildings encroaching on their views and able to see over their fences, general opposition to low-income housing, too dense, don’t want four story buildings, want to move the low-income housing as far away from their property as possible on Covell. In essence, what Wildhorse neighborhood commenters wanted is low-density suburban housing for the affluent, and to not let “those people” anywhere near their property.
*From a sheer political standpoint, it is better IMO for growth to occur in Davis, rather than elsewhere in the county/region. We have a good community, good schools, and for all its irritations, an honestly pretty decent local culture that newcomers tend to accommodate and internalize over time. The fact that it is established practice here to go and talk to (heckle, even) politicians and political activists pushing one measure or another at the farmer’s market every Saturday is a good thing, and has already thrived with decades of pretty steady growth. As the biggest city in the county, we have a certain political power that goes with our population. No growth displaces that growth elsewhere, and thus displaces our political influence as a community. We have tougher environmental standards, so that growth has less of an impact on our shared resources. We have a lot of stuff going on culturally in town, and we already serve as a sort of center for the surrounding county with concerts, festivals, etc. A lot more of our land is outside the flood plain than either Woodland or West Sac. We have better transit infrastructure well-positioned to manage future growth, both interurban from the capitol corridor/yolobus, as well as internally with the bike lanes and unitrans. We can handle more people while maintaining who we are, at least if we define who we are on how we interact with one another as a community and not the merely external form of our housing units.
* If it irritates the people in Wildhorse, that alone might recommend the project. Then again, voting for P would put me on the same side as Stan Forbes, whom I still have not forgiven for blocking the Richards underpass widening. So spite's out the window as a factor.
Ultimately, I’m still chewing over this ballot measure, but the end message that I am left with from both the proposal and the debate over the past couple months is that Davis continues to think small, suburban and as if the late 20th century could go on forever (it can't), and that it is going to take some serious effort to change the paradigm of city planning in any meaningful sense. That or another round of oil shocks, which should be back around in another year or so.
For a New Urbanist, these remain maddeningly blinkered times.