One of the key points that was raised was whether mixed-use buildings were appropriate in core areas or whether there should be retail or businesses on the second floor buildings.
The discussion quickly turned to whether there should be student apartments on the second floor of buildings in the core area.
This got me thinking that students often do not participate in land use discussions because they assume that their time horizon is too short to care a great deal about where and how the city should develop. And yet in many ways, students are heavily impacted by these sorts of land use decisions.
One thing that continues to trouble me is the Third and B visioning project which will take a lot of mixed-use housing. Some of the housing is mixed-use, which is owner-occupied, and some are student rentals that will be converted into high rise (third and fourth story) condominiums. That means largely pushing students out of a swath of area on the east side of campus which abuts the transition zone to the core area.
At the same time some of the more vibrant parts of the core area are on the west side of the core with Burgers and Brew, Crepeville, Ciocolat, Delta of Venus, all being essentially student catering businesses and all of them being essentially in the middle of student housing. And yet, once the project goes through, that will all change.
Where should a city like Davis put its student population? And where will the future student populations go?
One area that is planned right now is of course West Village. But if that is where we are relying on growth for the student and faculty population, we need to understand that there is limited retail in walking distance of that development. And while biking and busing is always an option, we are essentially precluding students from walking to downtown by putting the development on the west side of campus, out of normal walking distance from the core.
The discussion last night also moved beyond these issues to a more general discussion about the balance between historic preservation and commercial development. While certain members of the commission made strong arguments that we need to heed the call of business and particular retail business in our planning and design, to me and several others it remains far from clear that an adaptive re-use model cannot be quite successful. Some of the more interesting businesses have developed in what were essentially homes that have been remodeled.
Chief examples of that are Burgers and Brew and Ciocolat. In many ways, adaptive reuse I think is under utilized. Bistro 33 provides a thriving example of proper reuse of an historic building to a more modern need without destruction of the historic character.
Final point, really a good one that Lamar Heystek raised and I see occurring around town, not just with regard to historic management, and that is almost planned degradation of resources as a means to force new construction.
I have really two examples of that. First was the Anderson Bank Building that Jim Kidd has really allowed to degrade in terms of appearance and upkeep. And he tried to really use that to argue that we need to allow him to lower the bank building windows.
The other example is what has happened with West Lake Shopping center. There the owner allowed the proper to degrade and then argued that it wasn’t viable for grocery stores to move in and tried subsequently to get a rezone. Well part of the problem there, is that he failed to keep the property in prime condition, so no wonder he had trouble attracting new business. People working in that particular building have told me of amazing stories of neglect.
In my opinion, that type of neglect should not be rewarded by approval of zoning changes. We need to insure that business and property owners do not simply allow their building to degrade and attempt to use that as a reason to remodel or demolish.
I understand that we don’t want to paralyze the core with out of character buildings, but at the same time a bit of ingenuity can give us a good business utilizing existing buildings.
These are of course good discussions to continue having into the future. I certainly do not see historic preservation and commerce, and preservation and economic development as zero sum game.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“The other example is what has happened with West Lake Shopping center. There the owner allowed the proper to degrade and then argued that it wasn’t viable for grocery stores to move in and tried subsequently to get a rezone. Well part of the problem there, is that he failed to keep the property in prime condition, so no wonder he had trouble attracting new business. People working in that particular building have told me of amazing stories of neglect.”
It’s only fair to point out that the owners have recently invested $300,000 in upgrades to Westlake. Yet, even with that, no supermarket operators have expressed interest in that location.
Keep this in mind, too: When you own a shopping center like Westlake and it’s not generating profits — with no anchor tenant for almost two years, I’m sure they are in the red — it’s hard to come up with the money necessary to maintain or upgrade the premises. It ultimately is a question of cash flow.
Nevertheless, I do agree with the general point Lamar made about “demolition by neglect.” But what Lamar didn’t say last night — though in the past he said this to me personally — is that the City of Davis, owner of the Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer, is perhaps the most culpable of any historic property owner in town of this practice. The DHB tankhouse was demolished, almost entirely due to the neglect of its owner, The City of Davis…. And it was also under the City’s auspices, I believe, that the historic murals on the Varsity Theater were destroyed (though there currently is a plan to recreated them).
All in all, I thought last night’s discussion was a good one… We actually did not expect an audience to come, and it was for that reason that we set up the tables the way we did (in a block pattern). That’s the way we used to always hold HRMC meetings — and I actually think it encourages a more free-flowing discussion than having the participants facing the audience.
“The other example is what has happened with West Lake Shopping center. There the owner allowed the proper to degrade and then argued that it wasn’t viable for grocery stores to move in and tried subsequently to get a rezone. Well part of the problem there, is that he failed to keep the property in prime condition, so no wonder he had trouble attracting new business. People working in that particular building have told me of amazing stories of neglect.”
It’s only fair to point out that the owners have recently invested $300,000 in upgrades to Westlake. Yet, even with that, no supermarket operators have expressed interest in that location.
Keep this in mind, too: When you own a shopping center like Westlake and it’s not generating profits — with no anchor tenant for almost two years, I’m sure they are in the red — it’s hard to come up with the money necessary to maintain or upgrade the premises. It ultimately is a question of cash flow.
Nevertheless, I do agree with the general point Lamar made about “demolition by neglect.” But what Lamar didn’t say last night — though in the past he said this to me personally — is that the City of Davis, owner of the Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer, is perhaps the most culpable of any historic property owner in town of this practice. The DHB tankhouse was demolished, almost entirely due to the neglect of its owner, The City of Davis…. And it was also under the City’s auspices, I believe, that the historic murals on the Varsity Theater were destroyed (though there currently is a plan to recreated them).
All in all, I thought last night’s discussion was a good one… We actually did not expect an audience to come, and it was for that reason that we set up the tables the way we did (in a block pattern). That’s the way we used to always hold HRMC meetings — and I actually think it encourages a more free-flowing discussion than having the participants facing the audience.
“The other example is what has happened with West Lake Shopping center. There the owner allowed the proper to degrade and then argued that it wasn’t viable for grocery stores to move in and tried subsequently to get a rezone. Well part of the problem there, is that he failed to keep the property in prime condition, so no wonder he had trouble attracting new business. People working in that particular building have told me of amazing stories of neglect.”
It’s only fair to point out that the owners have recently invested $300,000 in upgrades to Westlake. Yet, even with that, no supermarket operators have expressed interest in that location.
Keep this in mind, too: When you own a shopping center like Westlake and it’s not generating profits — with no anchor tenant for almost two years, I’m sure they are in the red — it’s hard to come up with the money necessary to maintain or upgrade the premises. It ultimately is a question of cash flow.
Nevertheless, I do agree with the general point Lamar made about “demolition by neglect.” But what Lamar didn’t say last night — though in the past he said this to me personally — is that the City of Davis, owner of the Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer, is perhaps the most culpable of any historic property owner in town of this practice. The DHB tankhouse was demolished, almost entirely due to the neglect of its owner, The City of Davis…. And it was also under the City’s auspices, I believe, that the historic murals on the Varsity Theater were destroyed (though there currently is a plan to recreated them).
All in all, I thought last night’s discussion was a good one… We actually did not expect an audience to come, and it was for that reason that we set up the tables the way we did (in a block pattern). That’s the way we used to always hold HRMC meetings — and I actually think it encourages a more free-flowing discussion than having the participants facing the audience.
“The other example is what has happened with West Lake Shopping center. There the owner allowed the proper to degrade and then argued that it wasn’t viable for grocery stores to move in and tried subsequently to get a rezone. Well part of the problem there, is that he failed to keep the property in prime condition, so no wonder he had trouble attracting new business. People working in that particular building have told me of amazing stories of neglect.”
It’s only fair to point out that the owners have recently invested $300,000 in upgrades to Westlake. Yet, even with that, no supermarket operators have expressed interest in that location.
Keep this in mind, too: When you own a shopping center like Westlake and it’s not generating profits — with no anchor tenant for almost two years, I’m sure they are in the red — it’s hard to come up with the money necessary to maintain or upgrade the premises. It ultimately is a question of cash flow.
Nevertheless, I do agree with the general point Lamar made about “demolition by neglect.” But what Lamar didn’t say last night — though in the past he said this to me personally — is that the City of Davis, owner of the Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer, is perhaps the most culpable of any historic property owner in town of this practice. The DHB tankhouse was demolished, almost entirely due to the neglect of its owner, The City of Davis…. And it was also under the City’s auspices, I believe, that the historic murals on the Varsity Theater were destroyed (though there currently is a plan to recreated them).
All in all, I thought last night’s discussion was a good one… We actually did not expect an audience to come, and it was for that reason that we set up the tables the way we did (in a block pattern). That’s the way we used to always hold HRMC meetings — and I actually think it encourages a more free-flowing discussion than having the participants facing the audience.
dpd-
i think that is off base to say that ciocolat, burgers and brew, delta of venus, and crepeville, will see signifcant loss (or any loss)of business once the B St project happens.
All 4 of these businesses draw plenty of students, but from ALL OVER Davis, not just along B street.
And, much of their business comes from townies too…
the “chicken little” attitude towards new infill needs to change, otherwise instead of infill, we will develop the periphery….and that is an option that no “progressive” seem to want.
dpd-
i think that is off base to say that ciocolat, burgers and brew, delta of venus, and crepeville, will see signifcant loss (or any loss)of business once the B St project happens.
All 4 of these businesses draw plenty of students, but from ALL OVER Davis, not just along B street.
And, much of their business comes from townies too…
the “chicken little” attitude towards new infill needs to change, otherwise instead of infill, we will develop the periphery….and that is an option that no “progressive” seem to want.
dpd-
i think that is off base to say that ciocolat, burgers and brew, delta of venus, and crepeville, will see signifcant loss (or any loss)of business once the B St project happens.
All 4 of these businesses draw plenty of students, but from ALL OVER Davis, not just along B street.
And, much of their business comes from townies too…
the “chicken little” attitude towards new infill needs to change, otherwise instead of infill, we will develop the periphery….and that is an option that no “progressive” seem to want.
dpd-
i think that is off base to say that ciocolat, burgers and brew, delta of venus, and crepeville, will see signifcant loss (or any loss)of business once the B St project happens.
All 4 of these businesses draw plenty of students, but from ALL OVER Davis, not just along B street.
And, much of their business comes from townies too…
the “chicken little” attitude towards new infill needs to change, otherwise instead of infill, we will develop the periphery….and that is an option that no “progressive” seem to want.
Where should a University town put its student population?
As close to the University as possible. Building housing tailored to students close to campus will keep downtown businesses busy and cut down on cross-town car traffic. More students can walk and bike to school. When I lived a block from campus I drove about once a week to get groceries. When I lived in east Davis, I drove every day.
Where should a University town put its student population?
As close to the University as possible. Building housing tailored to students close to campus will keep downtown businesses busy and cut down on cross-town car traffic. More students can walk and bike to school. When I lived a block from campus I drove about once a week to get groceries. When I lived in east Davis, I drove every day.
Where should a University town put its student population?
As close to the University as possible. Building housing tailored to students close to campus will keep downtown businesses busy and cut down on cross-town car traffic. More students can walk and bike to school. When I lived a block from campus I drove about once a week to get groceries. When I lived in east Davis, I drove every day.
Where should a University town put its student population?
As close to the University as possible. Building housing tailored to students close to campus will keep downtown businesses busy and cut down on cross-town car traffic. More students can walk and bike to school. When I lived a block from campus I drove about once a week to get groceries. When I lived in east Davis, I drove every day.
I agree with “former student.”
It seems to me that when there are opportunities for redevelopment near the campus, we ought to be biased in favor of higher density student housing. Among the problems of the 3rd & B Visioning Project is that the rezoning was intentionally designed to eschew student and/or rental housing.
If the school district headquarters property at 5th & B is redeveloped, I think that would be a great spot for dense student housing. It would not only be walkable to downtown businesses (including the nearby Food Co-op), but it would be walkable and bikable to campus.
I agree with “former student.”
It seems to me that when there are opportunities for redevelopment near the campus, we ought to be biased in favor of higher density student housing. Among the problems of the 3rd & B Visioning Project is that the rezoning was intentionally designed to eschew student and/or rental housing.
If the school district headquarters property at 5th & B is redeveloped, I think that would be a great spot for dense student housing. It would not only be walkable to downtown businesses (including the nearby Food Co-op), but it would be walkable and bikable to campus.
I agree with “former student.”
It seems to me that when there are opportunities for redevelopment near the campus, we ought to be biased in favor of higher density student housing. Among the problems of the 3rd & B Visioning Project is that the rezoning was intentionally designed to eschew student and/or rental housing.
If the school district headquarters property at 5th & B is redeveloped, I think that would be a great spot for dense student housing. It would not only be walkable to downtown businesses (including the nearby Food Co-op), but it would be walkable and bikable to campus.
I agree with “former student.”
It seems to me that when there are opportunities for redevelopment near the campus, we ought to be biased in favor of higher density student housing. Among the problems of the 3rd & B Visioning Project is that the rezoning was intentionally designed to eschew student and/or rental housing.
If the school district headquarters property at 5th & B is redeveloped, I think that would be a great spot for dense student housing. It would not only be walkable to downtown businesses (including the nearby Food Co-op), but it would be walkable and bikable to campus.
Thanks Rich.
While I have disagreed with Mike Harrington on other issues in the past, I think what he did with the “Turtle House” on 2nd and Unversity could be a model for downtown. Mike remodeled the home back into what it use to be; group student housing. 11 students can comfortably fit into the main house and bungalow. I think this keeps that area true to itself and satisfies the need for student housing.
Which reminds me; the UC system has a built in growth policy – every year the UC population grows, thus UCD grows – hence Davis grows. The City needs to focus on where to fit these increases. In the past the City has solved this problem by building more apartments on the Davis periphery. UCD has part of the solution with the development by 113. But it appears the obivous solution has not struck the Council; redevelop areas near campus.
Thanks Rich.
While I have disagreed with Mike Harrington on other issues in the past, I think what he did with the “Turtle House” on 2nd and Unversity could be a model for downtown. Mike remodeled the home back into what it use to be; group student housing. 11 students can comfortably fit into the main house and bungalow. I think this keeps that area true to itself and satisfies the need for student housing.
Which reminds me; the UC system has a built in growth policy – every year the UC population grows, thus UCD grows – hence Davis grows. The City needs to focus on where to fit these increases. In the past the City has solved this problem by building more apartments on the Davis periphery. UCD has part of the solution with the development by 113. But it appears the obivous solution has not struck the Council; redevelop areas near campus.
Thanks Rich.
While I have disagreed with Mike Harrington on other issues in the past, I think what he did with the “Turtle House” on 2nd and Unversity could be a model for downtown. Mike remodeled the home back into what it use to be; group student housing. 11 students can comfortably fit into the main house and bungalow. I think this keeps that area true to itself and satisfies the need for student housing.
Which reminds me; the UC system has a built in growth policy – every year the UC population grows, thus UCD grows – hence Davis grows. The City needs to focus on where to fit these increases. In the past the City has solved this problem by building more apartments on the Davis periphery. UCD has part of the solution with the development by 113. But it appears the obivous solution has not struck the Council; redevelop areas near campus.
Thanks Rich.
While I have disagreed with Mike Harrington on other issues in the past, I think what he did with the “Turtle House” on 2nd and Unversity could be a model for downtown. Mike remodeled the home back into what it use to be; group student housing. 11 students can comfortably fit into the main house and bungalow. I think this keeps that area true to itself and satisfies the need for student housing.
Which reminds me; the UC system has a built in growth policy – every year the UC population grows, thus UCD grows – hence Davis grows. The City needs to focus on where to fit these increases. In the past the City has solved this problem by building more apartments on the Davis periphery. UCD has part of the solution with the development by 113. But it appears the obivous solution has not struck the Council; redevelop areas near campus.
Why not develop infill on the UC Davis campus itself. Plenty of room for dorms on the old Toomey Field site…and many other vacant sites on campus, near downtown.
A great-human-friendly prototype for such development is one of the more enlightened developments in recent years: Aggie Village by Davis Common.
This would obviate the need to tear down the houses along B Street near B, for example for high rise condos.
The house Mike Harrington renovated, per the comment above, is a great example of respect for original design. (except for the plastic front lawn!)
Why not develop infill on the UC Davis campus itself. Plenty of room for dorms on the old Toomey Field site…and many other vacant sites on campus, near downtown.
A great-human-friendly prototype for such development is one of the more enlightened developments in recent years: Aggie Village by Davis Common.
This would obviate the need to tear down the houses along B Street near B, for example for high rise condos.
The house Mike Harrington renovated, per the comment above, is a great example of respect for original design. (except for the plastic front lawn!)
Why not develop infill on the UC Davis campus itself. Plenty of room for dorms on the old Toomey Field site…and many other vacant sites on campus, near downtown.
A great-human-friendly prototype for such development is one of the more enlightened developments in recent years: Aggie Village by Davis Common.
This would obviate the need to tear down the houses along B Street near B, for example for high rise condos.
The house Mike Harrington renovated, per the comment above, is a great example of respect for original design. (except for the plastic front lawn!)
Why not develop infill on the UC Davis campus itself. Plenty of room for dorms on the old Toomey Field site…and many other vacant sites on campus, near downtown.
A great-human-friendly prototype for such development is one of the more enlightened developments in recent years: Aggie Village by Davis Common.
This would obviate the need to tear down the houses along B Street near B, for example for high rise condos.
The house Mike Harrington renovated, per the comment above, is a great example of respect for original design. (except for the plastic front lawn!)
B and B? I think you mean the 3rd and University neighborhood? Perfectly good homes along that stretch that should not be subject to the untender mercies of Maria Ogridziak (sp?) famous for her cartoon job on the Davis Food Co-op facade…
B and B? I think you mean the 3rd and University neighborhood? Perfectly good homes along that stretch that should not be subject to the untender mercies of Maria Ogridziak (sp?) famous for her cartoon job on the Davis Food Co-op facade…
B and B? I think you mean the 3rd and University neighborhood? Perfectly good homes along that stretch that should not be subject to the untender mercies of Maria Ogridziak (sp?) famous for her cartoon job on the Davis Food Co-op facade…
B and B? I think you mean the 3rd and University neighborhood? Perfectly good homes along that stretch that should not be subject to the untender mercies of Maria Ogridziak (sp?) famous for her cartoon job on the Davis Food Co-op facade…
I wanted to live off of University ave. except the prices and quality of places I looked to rent were far from what I ended up renting. Dense quality apartments needs to be near campus and downtown to reduce the carbon output of students and other people who love our great downtown. In my hometown of Concord, a 4 story condo complex was recently built in the heart of downtown. This eliminated the need for people to commute to their jobs in town and was near BART so it allowed mass transit to be used easier. A large modern apartments or condo complexes near downtown and Amtrak would fulfill many of the needs of Davis.
The issue I have heard about infill on campus, which I feel is a great thing to do, is that the UCD administration can not fulfill all the needs city. Also they are not beholden the will of the city. There are old areas on campus which could be redeveloped but I doubt that the administration will redo the old apartments into new ones.
I wanted to live off of University ave. except the prices and quality of places I looked to rent were far from what I ended up renting. Dense quality apartments needs to be near campus and downtown to reduce the carbon output of students and other people who love our great downtown. In my hometown of Concord, a 4 story condo complex was recently built in the heart of downtown. This eliminated the need for people to commute to their jobs in town and was near BART so it allowed mass transit to be used easier. A large modern apartments or condo complexes near downtown and Amtrak would fulfill many of the needs of Davis.
The issue I have heard about infill on campus, which I feel is a great thing to do, is that the UCD administration can not fulfill all the needs city. Also they are not beholden the will of the city. There are old areas on campus which could be redeveloped but I doubt that the administration will redo the old apartments into new ones.
I wanted to live off of University ave. except the prices and quality of places I looked to rent were far from what I ended up renting. Dense quality apartments needs to be near campus and downtown to reduce the carbon output of students and other people who love our great downtown. In my hometown of Concord, a 4 story condo complex was recently built in the heart of downtown. This eliminated the need for people to commute to their jobs in town and was near BART so it allowed mass transit to be used easier. A large modern apartments or condo complexes near downtown and Amtrak would fulfill many of the needs of Davis.
The issue I have heard about infill on campus, which I feel is a great thing to do, is that the UCD administration can not fulfill all the needs city. Also they are not beholden the will of the city. There are old areas on campus which could be redeveloped but I doubt that the administration will redo the old apartments into new ones.
I wanted to live off of University ave. except the prices and quality of places I looked to rent were far from what I ended up renting. Dense quality apartments needs to be near campus and downtown to reduce the carbon output of students and other people who love our great downtown. In my hometown of Concord, a 4 story condo complex was recently built in the heart of downtown. This eliminated the need for people to commute to their jobs in town and was near BART so it allowed mass transit to be used easier. A large modern apartments or condo complexes near downtown and Amtrak would fulfill many of the needs of Davis.
The issue I have heard about infill on campus, which I feel is a great thing to do, is that the UCD administration can not fulfill all the needs city. Also they are not beholden the will of the city. There are old areas on campus which could be redeveloped but I doubt that the administration will redo the old apartments into new ones.
I think the 3rd and B neighborhood tends to disconnect the University from downtown. I’m prefer it be redeveloped into an area with housing on the higher floors, and retail, restaurants, galleries, bookstores on the lower levels. Go to a town like Madison, WI and walk up state street (only bikes and buses allowed) and see how vibrant an area can become when students and nonstudents mix freely.
I think the 3rd and B neighborhood tends to disconnect the University from downtown. I’m prefer it be redeveloped into an area with housing on the higher floors, and retail, restaurants, galleries, bookstores on the lower levels. Go to a town like Madison, WI and walk up state street (only bikes and buses allowed) and see how vibrant an area can become when students and nonstudents mix freely.
I think the 3rd and B neighborhood tends to disconnect the University from downtown. I’m prefer it be redeveloped into an area with housing on the higher floors, and retail, restaurants, galleries, bookstores on the lower levels. Go to a town like Madison, WI and walk up state street (only bikes and buses allowed) and see how vibrant an area can become when students and nonstudents mix freely.
I think the 3rd and B neighborhood tends to disconnect the University from downtown. I’m prefer it be redeveloped into an area with housing on the higher floors, and retail, restaurants, galleries, bookstores on the lower levels. Go to a town like Madison, WI and walk up state street (only bikes and buses allowed) and see how vibrant an area can become when students and nonstudents mix freely.
“Why not develop infill on the UC Davis campus itself. Plenty of room for dorms on the old Toomey Field site…”
I think that’s a good idea. It achieves the same idea I have for 5th & B, but is better in a few respects: it’s open now and it could be done without harming an existing nieghborhood. If the stretch along A Street were built up, I’d like to see low-rise housing (similar to the east side of A Sreet) built, with higher rise dorms behind them, perhaps separated by some green space.
“Why not develop infill on the UC Davis campus itself. Plenty of room for dorms on the old Toomey Field site…”
I think that’s a good idea. It achieves the same idea I have for 5th & B, but is better in a few respects: it’s open now and it could be done without harming an existing nieghborhood. If the stretch along A Street were built up, I’d like to see low-rise housing (similar to the east side of A Sreet) built, with higher rise dorms behind them, perhaps separated by some green space.
“Why not develop infill on the UC Davis campus itself. Plenty of room for dorms on the old Toomey Field site…”
I think that’s a good idea. It achieves the same idea I have for 5th & B, but is better in a few respects: it’s open now and it could be done without harming an existing nieghborhood. If the stretch along A Street were built up, I’d like to see low-rise housing (similar to the east side of A Sreet) built, with higher rise dorms behind them, perhaps separated by some green space.
“Why not develop infill on the UC Davis campus itself. Plenty of room for dorms on the old Toomey Field site…”
I think that’s a good idea. It achieves the same idea I have for 5th & B, but is better in a few respects: it’s open now and it could be done without harming an existing nieghborhood. If the stretch along A Street were built up, I’d like to see low-rise housing (similar to the east side of A Sreet) built, with higher rise dorms behind them, perhaps separated by some green space.
Just to clarify my thought on Toomey: the low-rise housing on A Street, I would favor, would be of the Aggie Villa type, designed for faculty, while the dorms to their west would be more typical multi-story dorms and/or apartments for students.
Just to clarify my thought on Toomey: the low-rise housing on A Street, I would favor, would be of the Aggie Villa type, designed for faculty, while the dorms to their west would be more typical multi-story dorms and/or apartments for students.
Just to clarify my thought on Toomey: the low-rise housing on A Street, I would favor, would be of the Aggie Villa type, designed for faculty, while the dorms to their west would be more typical multi-story dorms and/or apartments for students.
Just to clarify my thought on Toomey: the low-rise housing on A Street, I would favor, would be of the Aggie Villa type, designed for faculty, while the dorms to their west would be more typical multi-story dorms and/or apartments for students.