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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.)
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 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. :)