University Village Faces Changes, Challenges
Comments (8)
USC hopes to change University Village (courtesy Creative Commons)
Although well out of its prime, there is something to be said about the UV’s practicality. You can grocery shop, get a haircut, fix your bike, watch a movie, pick up your photos and take your pick from a variety of different international meals all in one stop. In a city universally known for its urban sprawl and endless driving, that’s quite the feat.
Big changes are in store for the marketplace, however. In fact, by early 2013, it will most likely no longer exist. The construction process should start then and soon a new structure will stand in its place. The project, a product of the University’s Master Plan, will be structurally similar to Glendale’s Americana with a ground floor of retail and instructional facilities and upper levels of student housing. The goal of the undertaking is to provide students with a cheaper alternative to housing, minimize the displacement of community members, and give access to close shopping and entertainment.
Stores such as Trader Joes, Forever 21, H&M and others will be added to the Village, filling a void within the USC community.
For most students this is a dream come true, but the project isn’t without its challenges. The Master Plan Committee faces an interesting issue. Due to the diversity in economic classes within the USC and surrounding populations, it isn’t easy to create a space that everyone can fully utilize.
Brian League, a member of the USC Master Plan Advisory Committee, recognizes these challenges. In order to appeal to both sides, USC is turning to schools in similar predicaments across the country. League said they are emulating what the University of Pennsylvania has done.
“Penn invested in the surrounding area, built a hotel and a lot of retail, and it stabilized the community”, which is exactly what USC hopes to do.
Currently, UV addresses the local population’s needs more so than the student population. In order to keep that market of consumers and maintain a level of fairness for longstanding vendors, the committee is welcoming back current shopkeepers. Although their rent may be escalated, the expected increase in consumer activity within the Village should more than compensate.
There is speculation that both Trader Joes and Superior Market will be located in the new Village. This is a prime example at how the committee is trying to appease both sides of the community.
James Steele, a professor at the USC School of Architecture and 15-year resident of the area, says this will “address a certain community overlap with student and local populations. Superior Market serves the local population. It’s not expensive but not necessarily what the student population would like. It’s very much geared to the locals, but you have to cater to both sides.”
In addition to commercial factors, the additional housing is another big aspect of the project. Since its gradual slide from a commuter to a residential school, USC has been slowly displacing residents within the area. Many of the locals cannot compete with students for the rising rent prices.
The new structure will have the capacity for 2,600 beds providing affordable housing for both undergrad and graduate students. League said they are hoping this addition will help set the market point for student housing and drive down the current prices, which would be advantageous for students and locals alike.
The project has received a lot of support from the surrounding community, but not all are pleased. League said, “others are saying we’re not doing enough and we need to provide low income housing for all the displacement our students have caused.
“It’s hard when we get criticized by the community for being portrayed as a large evil entity for displacing the community. I don’t think we’re denying our students have displaced people.”
Steele agreed the displacement isn’t malicious or intentional. “Slow gentrification is going on in this area anyways. There’s been change in the past 15 years with the student population taking over. It’s inevitable as the university grows.”
Steele thinks the project will be beneficial. “The University needs to expand, it’s a good thing for the city…. The taxes it’s going to generate will help the city of LA a lot.”
In addition to tax money, the new Village will provide a lot of jobs locally.
Despite it’s benefits and drawbacks, it’s hard to see the issue as cut and dry.
The new shopping center needs to appease both populations. In evidence to the committee’s effort, Steele noted the importance of keeping Superior Market.
“It’s a symbolic issue about the commitment to the community and the integration of the local community and the campus. It says a lot about being accommodating. “
He then added, “Cohabitation is a fact and you can’t really judge it morally. How do you put judgment on certain things and not others? You have to be objective about it.”
While there are many issues currently surrounding the community, it is the hope of both the USC and local populations that the new center will be a step in the right direction in making cohabitation easier for everyone.
Reach Shannon Snyder here.
Comments
It is hilarious when I listen to this debate. Since when have clean streets and stores and pleasant neighborhoods been something that is only engineered towards the USC community and ghetto living with cheap, run down section 8 housing what "the neighborhood" people deserve? I am so tired of listening to the same retarded liberal arguments for yet another generation of South Central kids to be indoctrinated to. They are to grow up thinking they do it deserve to live in a clean pleasant neighborhood but a government subsidized project.
interesting..
The University wouldn't be going anywhere, if it thought it could move back in the '60s well, there's no wild-open space like those days anymore. What? The University's going to rebuild itself out of stucco and cinderwalls like a Cal State San Marcos somewhere in Malibu or Orange County? No way. The University and the community of South Central will just have to play in their li'l room like good children, even if one runs itself like a giant Evil Corporation. And that UV Mall - has needed to come down since the 1980s. "Back in my day", the Community didn't even have a Vermont Ralphs, all shopping was at 32nd Street Market, rats on the produce and all (yes, there were rats loose in the store, I saw them many a time we were buying alcohol with fake IDs). So yes, this alumnus thinks that both students and neighbors would be better off, even if the whole thing's going to look like some gawd-awful Rick Caruso project strained through George Lucas' design team.
"Currently, UV addresses the local population’s needs more so than the student population. In order to keep that market of consumers and maintain a level of fairness for longstanding vendors, the committee is welcoming back current shopkeepers."
Wow....just..wow. Biggest piece of bull feces in the whole article.
No to gentrification! The community of South Central was here before the University and if the University should ever leave (as it so eloquently threatened to back in the 60s), the community of South Central will still be there. USC needs to stop being a gangster (yes a gangster, a cartel, ala BP, or a corporation that does what it wants) and USC needs to put forth a comprehensive plan for lots of affordable housing and living wage jobs for local residents.
We want to USC develop its institution to accommodate its students, but the way and the plan it is putting forth is just disastrous, not unpleasant, not disappointing, BUT horrible - its gonna hurt the community.
I am surprised at this exaggeration and vilification of the university. USC has done great things in partnership with the neighborhood in the last 20 years. Yes, the university has become more residential and with it has come gentrification. But this village concept is attempting to concentrate student housing with USC so that greater stock of apt units are available, prices stabilize, and some housing can be returned for the neighborhood. That the neighborhood has changed and will continue to change is a economic reality that will require adaptation by both USC and neighbors. For the neighborhood, take these changes as an opportunity for the neighborhood to enjoy more jobs, amenities, and mobility, and for USC its an opportunity to create a village with balanced shopping experiences that appeal to as broad a population as is possible.
As for community benefits packages, I think USC should be open to this -- and it sounds like it is. Preferential hiring and structuring a community home lending / improvement loan program seem like a sound deal that benefits both sides. Creating low-income housing isn't in the University's mission. Sorry, its a University first and foremost. Low-income or mixed-income housing policies and responsibilities lie with local government and other developers.
Why is building a Forever 21 and a movie theater in the University's mission but building affordable housing is not? USC has become the same as those "other" developers when it diverted from its educational mission by accepting land from the Redevelopment agency and building a mall. It should be held to the same standards around affordable housing and jobs as other developers.
The university did NOT take land from a redevelopment agency and build a mall. The university bought UV long after it was built (literally decades later) when the mall was in bankruptcy due to mismanagement. USC literally saved University Village as a community resource. I recognize the truth and facts don't make your arguments work, but the lies are getting old.