"Sitting-friendly" G St.
January 26, 2025
Sitting-friendly does not mean the same thing as "Joy Priority, Expressed with Convivial Design".
Join me on G Street...
I'm not discussing here the fight to make it happen, the politicians who voted against it, the free car parking entitlement, and the process to get us to this point...
I visited early on Saturday afternoon, January 25th, 2 days before the ribbon cutting..
Please see photos with captions.
It's incomplete and it's not clear why they are doing an opening event at this time. But I will say that the only clear positive thing about it is that it's much quieter than the rest of Downtown at that time of day. At the time I compared it to the corner of 2nd St and E St, where one could barely hear the sound of a violin over all the engine noise. Nearly all of Downtown is like that, vibration pollution squashing any notion of genius loci.
Unfortunately, a significant proportion or perhaps the majority of people will drive to get here. The title of what I'm writing at you now refers to "bicycle-friendly", our City's delusional compliment about itself: It's designed for cars, but bikes are accepted in some places.
Comments:
The varied types of seating seem to be well used, though demand is very low right now.
There's only two intentional ADA compliant seating spaces, in the typical 3/4 configuration, but it's not clear if people will be able to move to a free table if a space is needed and there's no space for a couple using wheelchairs, which may also be a oversight of ADA, but it reflects an ugly assumption.
The bicycle parking is reduced compared to the prior configuration and it's nearly all full now, which is a problem since there's hardly anybody here... Most of the bike parking is at the south end. There's nothing specifically for larger bikes such as cargo bikes or bikes with trailers.
As I understand it, restaurants here will be able to rent spaces on the platforms and displace existing furniture and spots to sit in... If I have this correct, it means a lot less general public seating. This will create conflicts if the exclusive seating is empty and the public seating is full.
The total number of proper seats at tables is well less than the number of Commissioners which were eliminated in the recent Purge led by the mayor.
Tables, for example, in Central Park allow groups of perhaps eight people to sit together. The tables here only allow four.
The wood and cube formed feeding block things encourage climbing, which means that they'll be filthy very quickly and not very conducive to seating for many. Certainly, kids should not be discouraged from climbing, but there's not any climbing specific equipment here.
There's no food available at windows on the sidewalks. There's a coffee shop and a tea place, but it's not clear if they or the restaurants etc. will platform-ize.
There's a provision for sun shades only on the tables and it's not clear who will put these up and take them down everyday, or if they will be locked in place overnight during the summer... The other seating has no shading at all
It's not clear to me how the unshaded seating will perform when it's in the sun for hours during the summer. The platform material will likely create an issue.
The existing street surface is incredibly ugly and actually forms a centerpiece for the whole thing. One of the videos at the link is 180° shot of the street street. From the perspective one of those yellow two-person one-sided tables. It's all ugly, asphalt and parked cars.
The white colored pavers or whatever on the platforms show dirt really easily and will look like crap immediately.
Bright headlights from cars coming north from 2nd Street and turning left or right from southbound G Street at 3rd Street will all pierce the eyeballs of everyone sitting at both ends or actually most of the street. I had actually made a specific point about this to city staff months ago but got no reaction.
There's an absurdly insufficient number of trash and recycling receptacles.
The vertical poles holding up the string lights are dark and may have insufficient contrast from the street etc. Especially at night. This might be an ADA oversight. Some high curbs were eliminated, which is positive.
What's happening with the two empty store fronts?
Thanks for reading!
Great points, thanks. To which I would add: It's ugly AF and joyless.
You said you aren't sure if they are doing an opening event. I thought the opening was tomorrow: https://www.facebook.com/CityofDavis/posts/pfbid02AFWAGp7bddFJXvpVaTHcDmmLtaiLZKY4uAjZ6X3dZsF48EmnoZk8ypzrjYLvDK5fl
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | January 26, 2025 at 08:28 AM
Agree. We visited yesterday and were shocked with how ugly and uninviting the street is. One of the wire fences was already broken. And the whole design looks amateurish. The platforms also did not seem very sturdy and will likely fail quickly. Overall, I thought it was a waste of money even though I approve of the concept.
Posted by: Judith Recchio | January 26, 2025 at 09:28 AM
"It's ugly AF and joyless"
That about sums it up.
Posted by: Keith | January 26, 2025 at 09:46 AM
""bicycle-friendly", our City's delusional compliment about itself: It's designed for cars, but bikes are accepted in some places. "
An accurate assessment and definition of "bike friendly." Best I've heard in a long while.
I'm a bit numb to see where we are just moments before the "grand opening." That the pavement wasn't re-sealed as a blank canvas seems like a huge oversight.... as it retains all the joy and people-forward aspects of the worn-out, cracked, stained car-way that it has been for years. Topped off with retaining the giant painted STOP for cars.
And those poles to hold up lights and shade sails... Surely this can't be the final design with having them planted directly in the path of bicyclists who wish to enter between the bollards, and face directly into a black pole against black asphalt?
Thank you for all the pictures and captions. We seem to have created a slightly narrower street with wider brutalist sidewalks and furniture. It can only get better.... right? Why do I suddenly miss the ugly, rustic and high-character pallet seating areas??
Posted by: darelldd | January 26, 2025 at 11:34 AM
Roberta: Thanks yes, I was aware of the event and made a small edit
Posted by: Todd | January 26, 2025 at 12:39 PM
👍🏼
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | January 26, 2025 at 02:36 PM
There's not a lot of seating and it's not clear why this is the case...
Limited budget? The desire to limit overall participation? Ease of removal if one of the businesses rents a platform area?
Most of the seating areas are also some distance from other ones making it difficult to have spontaneous interactions with people at other seating areas.... However, it does increase privacy.
Posted by: Tuvia etc | January 26, 2025 at 02:56 PM
It is a total disappointment. Why did they keep the curbs?
Posted by: Pelayo Alvarez | January 26, 2025 at 04:08 PM
Pelayo, as I mentioned the top I'm not getting into details of what is possible with the budget.
The downtown grid and mostly non-permeable surface is a problem in what's essentially a flood plain connected with the former route of what's now known as Putah Creek.
Drainage is much easier when there's curbs but of course it can be done without them. I'm not sure if this is in the works for G Street or the rest of our Downtown: everything is still normalized for private motor vehicles and the occasional emergency vehicle: The city council recently approved a street design template but it's really only about sidewalks, just like G Street
Posted by: Tuvia, etc | January 26, 2025 at 04:55 PM
I have lost all faith in the City and the City process. This is disgusting and embarrassing on all levels, from input to design to implementation to somehow only the city council and staff and proud of this, and everyone else is being gaslit into believing we are not seeing the dysfunction and ugliness?
Not to mention what I've been saying for years -- this is the wrong street to close off from a circulation perspective, and the choice should have been done comprehensively through a circulation plan, not because "we closed it during Covid-19 and it 'worked' ".
I do apologize to Woodstocks as I'd suspected the City was doing this as a tacit favor to them and few others key businesses, but sounds like even Woodstocks isn't happy with this as they've been critical of the plaza design and especially the lack of dealing with the so-called 'homeless' hanging out nearby who have stolen their propane tanks.
One word: Winters
If y'all just copied Winters in how they deal with the so-called 'homeless' and how they designed and operate their street plaza, Davis would be leaps and bounds ahead of this cluster.
But go celebrate Monday and validate their bu**sh*t! :-|
Justify their spending! :-|
Tell them how much we love them :-|
Harooooo!
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 26, 2025 at 05:13 PM
Alan: partly related to circulation and partly central-ness, This section of G Street is actually somewhat peripheral... 2nd Street between E and F makes somewhat more sense... though, at the very least, the entirety of downtown should have an extremely slow speed design and longer contiguous car free area or multiple small ones.
Posted by: Tuvia etc | January 26, 2025 at 05:28 PM
I have a plan that I've shared many times.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 26, 2025 at 08:56 PM
Todd: Thanks for the artcle, did you or anyone else hear what this project cost? The quality seems real low (I expect more wires to break soon) and the faux "tile" is supported by "plastic" bases (I looked in while they were building it a few months back) and I also expect that the bases will soon break. Does anyone know if even a single "City of Davis" employee rides to work? Sometimes I feel like the percentage of people in town that ride a bike to work is as low as the guys in their 60's that run ten miles on weekends (I rode my bike to work today and ran ten miles yesterday)...
Posted by: South of Davis | January 27, 2025 at 01:16 PM
SoM: "The recommended project is projected to cost $1,075,000. Platforms are estimated to cost $250,000; fencing, barriers and planters $400,000; construction $175,000; decorative lighting $150,000 and street furniture $100,000. The project’s budget, which comes from American Rescue Plan Act funds, is approximately $1,057,400." See: https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/council-directs-staff-to-begin-g-street-activation-design-process/article_ae7b8600-c5ee-11ee-8415-fb31be1cf30e.html
Posted by: Tuvia etc | January 27, 2025 at 02:04 PM
SoM: Cycling to campus is covered in the Campus Travel Survey; Cycling to work in general Is addressed in a supplementary Census mechanism... I had someone familiar with statistics look into this and it's kind of hard to come up with a conclusion, but based on number of bikes at workplaces off campus and outside of downtown, the cycling modal share is well under 5%.
It's always an interesting question about how activity affects policy and vice versa. We can look at recent Mayors who would cycle around anti City Hall and then we could look at policies that were created while they were in office... Same for City staff. I guess....I don't think it's a clear picture.
Perhaps it makes more of a difference with infrastructure compared to other things for which the city has a big role... There's a lot of nuance that comes up in relation to cycling, for example cycling at night... And City staff that lives out of town rarely cycles in town in darkness.
But then they just have to be good listeners and have supervisors that actually support City policy....
Posted by: Tuvia etc | January 27, 2025 at 02:12 PM
In my most recent comment, "anti" should have been ,"and to"....
Posted by: Tuvia etc | January 27, 2025 at 02:15 PM
In regard to Todd's comment regarding cost, y'all oughta stop complaining about the use of "free" money (and really - not that much of it). That is, if you wanted the street closed-off to traffic in the first place.
Apparently, American Rescue Plan Act funds can be used for an amazingly-wide "variety" of projects. And well-after the pandemic, to boot.
Posted by: Ron O | January 27, 2025 at 03:15 PM
Ron, this street is now more open: Streets have always been places in between buildings, and traditionally less linear spaces for mobility than in the last hundred years or so.
Posted by: Tuvia etc | January 27, 2025 at 03:43 PM
Todd: The only reason that streets have "always been open" (in regard to your definition) is because cars didn't really exist prior to a hundred or so years ago. The days when they were scooping-up horse poop, off the streets. For sure, they weren't riding Penny-Farthings to campus, all that much.
Just the other day, I was noticing several small structures that I suspect were once "carriage houses", in Davis.
I'd like to see an analysis of what happens on "surrounding streets", whenever they close-off one to auto traffic.
But again, I'm not sure what "Davisites expect" in regard to a million dollars of "free money".
Posted by: Ron O | January 27, 2025 at 03:57 PM
"American Rescue Plan Act funds"
I heard a commentary yesterday that explained how politicians gain power by spending government funds. The more government funds you can acquire and spend, the more power you gain.
The American Rescue Plan gave a lot of politicians a lot of power.
But these were definitely not "G Street Rescue Plan" funds in the literal sense.
But somebodie$ got$ $ome power$ :-|
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 27, 2025 at 04:03 PM
I'm not only disappointed, I'm astonished that this million dollar failure made it through several levels of local approvals.
It has as much charm and aesthetic appeal as any indoor shopping mall food court in Omaha, Nebraska, or Elephant's Breath, Arkansas. Move along, folks, nothing to see here. It was actually a cooler space before the "improvements."
Fortunately, there are more inviting places to eat and drink outside (Froggy's, Mama, and Tres Hermanas immediately come to mind). Also the outdoor seating areas at Davis Commons, where kids can play on the grassy area, and My Burma and Mikuni have wonderful little courtyards.
Posted by: Eric Warp | January 27, 2025 at 07:43 PM
“The title of what I'm writing at you now refers to "bicycle-friendly", our City's delusional compliment about itself: It's designed for cars, but bikes are accepted in some places. “
This is the most accurate statement about our city I have read in years, the question is; is there any hope of changing this?
Posted by: Sk | January 27, 2025 at 07:53 PM
At the risk of incurring anyone' s wrath, I'm glad the street is open again. And I trust, that over time, many of the current drawbacks (which I don't disagree with) can be overcome, mitigated, modified. Let's try to put our energy there instead of cursing the obvious since it's now there and, arguably, better than what was there.
Posted by: Dave Hart | January 28, 2025 at 12:18 PM
Dave,
In regards to your reported cursing, if things are so obvious, why did we pay so much money for them?
One topic is street safety: The planned mitigation for this vertical post planted intentionally to accidentally be collided with by people on bikes, is to add some brightly colored paint to it: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wnBCo4Ex95jETSDeA
Posted by: Tuvia etc | January 28, 2025 at 12:42 PM
DH say: "Let's try to put our energy there instead of cursing the obvious since it's now there and, arguably, better than what was there."
A smaller amount of poop is better than a larger amount of poop, true :-| Was that wrath?
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | January 28, 2025 at 01:08 PM
LORAX NOTE PROJECT IS NOT A SHADY DEAL: Ignoring the Davis CAAP.
The $1,075 mil ARP fed money for this project as originally set asside for Landscaping and trees in downtown...reflect many comment council received the new downtown specific plan neglect to address revitalizing trees even though they are clearly ailing and missing in many places.
But this promise to public was all forgotten: this money was then reallocated to this on block. I note the written plan for this 00 block of G street did not use the word "tree" when a easy walk for even the uninformed shows a number of street trees are missing and/or at end of life.
The lack of addressing shade needed to make this outside seating useable in the summae is notable. Not even poles for shade taps. The "heat island" effect of unshaded pavement mentioned in climate change CAAP seems forgotten.
I note this G Street plan was approved by council the same night they announced ending the city Tree Commission.
The issues here goes beyond any individual staffer or project to the culture of Davis CITY Hall that staff works under.
Another wasted opportunity. Sad,
Posted by: Alan Hirsch | January 30, 2025 at 02:49 PM