To hear the wildly divergent reactions among neighbors to the University of Southern California's long-brewing and massive $900 million, 5 million-square-foot University Park redevelopment plan, an outsider might think there are two USCs.
One USC is the generous provider of jobs and education programs and full scholarships to qualifying kids in the mostly minority, South Los Angeles neighborhood that surrounds the elite private school.
Then there's the other USC, a developer and economic powerhouse that has dictated terms to neighbors, broken promises and forced families from their homes.
The contradictions were cast in tragic relief in April, when two Chinese USC grad students who lived on the "wrong" side of Vermont Avenue — seeking the much cheaper rents there — were slain.
Sandra McNeil, executive president of Trust South L.A., a nonprofit that promotes housing, health care and job placement, lives not too far from where Ming Qu and Ying Wu, both 23, were gunned down. "My housemate heard the shots that night," she says. "The next morning, walking my kids to school, the cops were all over the place."
Trust South L.A. has joined a bigger area coalition called UNIDAD — United Neighbors in Defense Against Displacement — pushing USC to address broader problems. McNeil found it telling that after the murders, "They had the police and the security guards sent out, and they had a security guard ... at the site of the crime scene.
"But it's not about sending out the police to jack up the kids in the neighborhood. It's about making sure that kids in the neighborhood have summer jobs. ... It's about encouraging stable neighborhoods."
Former city planner Dick Platkin says USC, by continually failing to provide "adequate student housing, forced students to spread out over a large, risky area."
Platkin has done some free consulting for a local group and says, "USC's solution is to hire more cops, not to address the housing shortage and resulting gentrification."
Weeks before the two murders that horrified Los Angeles and made headlines in China, neighbors met at a city-sponsored discussion of USC's proposal. The meeting unveiled a wide gulf that could create hurdles as university leaders push forward.
At the meeting, neighbor Ruth Molina said a USC Upward Bound program helped her in high school. Molina urged residents to get behind the university. "We should be fighting education cuts, not USC," she said.
But Maria Elana Rivas, speaking in Spanish through a translator, expressed anxiety. She wants university leaders to communicate — not inform neighbors top-down.
Father Bill Delaney, of St. Agnes Church on Vermont, isn't opposed to USC's vision but wants its leaders to get serious about the destabilizing outflow of working-class families. "In the last 10 years, we've lost 1,000 families from our church. That's 5,000 people who have left the neighborhood."
USC has promised that the largest development effort in decades to hit South L.A. will be all to the good, creating 12,000 jobs and adding affordable student housing.
USC would raze and rebuild its most politically awkward asset — the University Village shopping center, just off campus, which USC has let become a tired, isolated business district. On campus, USC would construct housing for 4,200 more students, plus a hotel and conference center.
The plan is backed by the staff of the L.A. Planning Commission and is scheduled to be discussed May 10 at the commission.
With the Grove's superstar developer, Rick Caruso, sitting on USC's 55-member board of trustees, the university appears to envision a Grove-style mall. Demolition of University Village wouldn't force out any homeowners or landowners, in great contrast to the hated eminent domain wielded years ago by the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency.
"It's going to make this neighborhood much more vital," says Tom Sayles, senior vice president for university relations. "The kind of retail we want to bring in will serve those in the USC community, as well as those in the surrounding community."
But critics say it seems more like Westwood on the Eastside.
Gentrification in Hollywood in the past decade has forced out thousands of working-class Latinos, a trend identified by the 2010 U.S. Census, even as politicians such as City Councilmen Eric Garcetti and Tom LaBonge extolled redevelopment as a plus for all. Hollywood has seen a drastic population drop of 15,000 in a decade.
USC neighbors, 90 percent of whom are renters, many Latino, fear they could be next. Further, if L.A.'s redevelopment history is a fair guide, they worry most of the 12,000 jobs will go to commuters, not to locals, regardless of promises to "hire locally." Delaney and others also say Metro's new Expo Line on the south edge of USC will further drive up rents, as fixed-rail projects tend to do, by inviting in land speculators.
David Robinson of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy is part of the UNIDAD coalition. He says that unless Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, City Council members and university leaders talk much more honestly about the negative aspects of gentrification, the neighborhood depicted in USC's renderings may not include the people who have tried to create a community there.
In fact, USC has held many meetings to get feedback. And Strategic Actions for a Just Economy was placed on an advisory group. But, Robinson scoffs, "every bit of criticism or positive suggestion on how to improve the plan has been brushed aside."
I went to USC, they need to spend all of that money and start building a campus in a safer area for their students. I didn't realize how bad it was until I got there. And with students paying an arm and a leg to be educated there, they deserve to feel safe and be safe.
They don't need to go anywhere. The neighborhood is gentrifying. In 20 years it'll be another Westwood.
Any project that replaces dilapidated, old buildings with shiny new edifices should be embraced by everyone who is in their right mind. Especially the people in the surrounding neighborhood who get to enjoy the sprucing up of part of their otherwise decaying area. Who wants to live amongst urban blight?
If you ask me, whole parts of our decaying city should be razed and replaced by new construction. It is depressing to drive through parts of this city. It boggles me why anyone would be against gentrification and why we should care about those folks who may have to move because of i?. Obviously, beautifying neighborhoods is going to have the affect of making them more attractive thus driving up the demand and that means some current residents may not afford it and will have to move. But isn't that better than the alternative of letting ghettos continue to rot?
just as Tammy answered I am dazzled that a mother able to earn $8743 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you read this site lazycash42.c()m
my classmate's sister makes $88/hr on the internet. She has been fired from work for 8 months but last month her paycheck was $21668 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site lazycash42.c()m
LOL @ insecure Southern Cal graduates and their "improved rankings."
Really? because a magazine said this year, X school has topped Y school by 2 points, it's the better school now? Get real with your petty childishness.
Stanford and UCLA has been and will always be the better academic institution than Southern Cal. UCLA and Stanford are the top 2 spenders in academic research followed by Washington. That's more legitimate than some padded private school ranking on the magazine.
Faith Based Hate, do you know ANYONE from USC under the age of 25? It's not your grandfather's USC. I get the old criticisms of the university. They're legitimate, but not anymore.
The key word in your post is "always." Stanford (funny how you would include them) and UCLA will always... ahem, no they won't. Times change, whether you want to admit it or not.
USC has risen in the past 2 decades from 51st in the U.S. News rankings to 23rd in the most recent ones. This isn't about USC being the #1 university in Los Angeles. It's about being the #1 university in the world. Rankings have meanings - and reflect underlying realities - that many Bruins (and Golden Bears) have trouble stomaching. USC for nearly a decade has had better students than both Berkeley and UCLA and it has more students with Caltech numbers than Caltech does. In fact, this year the admissions office noted that many parents are willing to send their kids to USC over Berkeley (even with the lower in-state tuition cost) because the kids can get the classes they need and graduate on time. That's the reality of public education in California, at every level.
I have no insecurity in being a Trojan. I chose USC over Berkeley and UCLA (out of state) along with Northwestern and the University of Chicago. I was admitted to every school I applied to. One of my best friends came to USC over Harvard. You would know that if you'd interacted with anyone from USC who is there now or graduated recently. What you read as insecurity I read as annoyance with tired old stereotypes - like the use of the term "Southern Cal," which has been retired for years because the university has no affiliation with the actual Cal.
In the meantime, your straw man dismissal of the U.S. News rankings as "a" magazine and "some padded private school ranking" indicates your lack of familiarity with what for most high school students is the definitive guide for choosing a college. U.S. News has published their rankings for almost 3 decades during which they've responded to criticisms and refined their formula to help parents and students with one of the most important and expensive decisions of their lifetimes. There are plenty of other rankings out there and you are right to criticize USC's lesser research activity, but that too is undoubtedly changing. The university is in the midst of a $6 billion fundraising campaign and much of that will be devoted to growing research university and the medical school. That side of the university has a long way to go, although I find it funny that when it comes to research, you equate spending with quality, i.e. the very criticism that Bruins have leveled at USC for years.
Funny how UCLA use to brag about how high they ranked in US News & World Report (oh look, we are the only school created in the 20th Century in the Top Ten!)... now that the school is dropping like a stone, said rankings are scoffed at by their delusional fan base. No surprise here.
You comment is on point. I think a lot of the "fortress" language reflects the visual impression of *seeing* the neighborhoods around USC, and seeing USC's campus. Fancy brick buildings juxtaposed w the kinda shabby facades of Vermont Ave, the fences that surround campus, etc. In many ways, the UV would extend this spatial, visual contrast. And this is surely true even as everything you write is true, and a positive reflection on the university. How to reduce the spatial fortress impression is an interesting question--especially given safety concerns. And given that USC already makes many wonderful contributions to local communities. I have no answer here, just comments.
Interesting to see this related to the shootings ... the push/pull, "2 USC" struggle over university village has been going on for much longer. Say what you will about the current UV's dated looks, it *works*--both students and locals use it, and it feels programmed for either. Yeah it's also kinda ugly, yeah the retail mix is a little shabby, but it works. On the other hand, campus official's remarks re UV, and the renderings seen in this article, both indicate the new UV will read as a campus extension, to the exclusion of non-students. This saddens me.
I do believe that USC can do more to include the community in its vision of what this space can be, and part of that would be providing more student housing (to reduce displacement), more affordable housing (or in lieu $$s), and a public plaza/park in the new UV. Enforceable language re local hiring or affordable grocery stores would be a plus.
One last point: the Caruso "gonna be a Grove 2.0" is misleading. Yes, the aesthetics might read that way, but per USC officials I've listened to, there will be no big-footprint retail--no Macy's, no Target (to many students' chagrin, true), no Costco ... just stuff intended for a more geographically local audience. We'll see.
So, Ghettoization is "Diversification" and is Good and Gentrification is Bad. Is that right?
I love this part of Los Angeles. I can't wait to gentrify a small part of it. :D
Why should I care? No one is concerned when thousands of working class people of European descent are forced out of their communities and neighborhoods by illegal immigration.
"USC neighbors, 90 percent of whom are renters, many Latino... worry most of the 12,000 jobs will go to commuters, not to locals"
Well, Mr. Berg, you forgot to mention that about 65% of those USC neighbors are illegal immigrants working for cash, and that about 80% of the neighbors can barely speak English (or "no habla Ingles" at all). Thus, only a small segment of those 12,000 jobs can go to the locals.
As far as I can see, most of the USC's problems come from a fact that it sits right in the heart of a ghetto. They should've moved decades ago as UCLA did many years ago.
When are our reps, elected offi jals going to step up for the poor?! Why did you all choose tbis path?? $$$? And power I ask! In support of UNIDAD and the sorrounding long time low imcome residents!
my neighbor's mom makes $75 an hour on the laptop. She has been fired from work for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $19924 just working on the
laptop for a few hours. Here's the site to read more lazycash42.c()m
interesting article. I never really considered the negative components of gentrification before. made me think, thanks.
Here's what I don't get:
The residents around USC are effectively complaining that the redevelopment will price them out of the community. Well, so? I'd like to live in Newport Beach, but I can't afford it. Do i whine about it? No. Basically, those residents want USC to subsidize them. That's pretty ballsy of them to demand that. How about they go to school, get good jobs and move into better neighborhoods? That's what my working class parents did when my mom gave birth to me at 16 and my dad was 18. They put each other through school and, after a hell of a lot of sacrifice, were able to make good livings as a result. We even had to leave one apartment complex we lived in (I had two siblings at the time, too) because it went condo. That was actually a great thing for me because it forced my parents to move and, as a result, I was able to go to a better high school than the one I had been at.
Look, I am no friend of USC. I went to a Cal State, working my through it without a dime in scholarships, loans or from my parents. But I just don't see why what USC is doing here is wrong.
Don't you see the difference?
You would like to live in Newport Beach, alas you can't afford to move to Newport Beach.
These people ALREADY live in their neighborhood. They are concerned about being forced out.
It shouldn't take a USC grad to comprehend the differences btwn. the 2 arguments.
"That's what my working class parents did when my mom gave birth to me at 16 and my dad was 18. They put each other through school and, after a hell of a lot of sacrifice, were able to make good livings as a result." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The way of life your parents were 'lucky' enough to experience is sadly no longer relevant in 2012. Like the Bob Dylan song says, 'Things Have Changed' - politically, economically, culturally, and on a macro level amongst many other ways. Perhaps we should begin exploring and trying to understand the context and history guiding people's demands and strive for understanding them rather than leaping to blind assumptions and reactionary attitudes. Even our cell phones become obsolete after a year or two. We as people have the ability to upgrade our minds at a similar pace thereby awakening in the process. This is just a thought, not coming from a place of disrespect or arrogance.
What a bunch of bull! Yes, things have changed, we live in a very dynamic world; however, people still get good education, people still manage to find good jobs and so on. Motivations and, if you will, cultural background -- that still matters
Recent example: my friends' son (they are immigrants from Eastern Europe with no money and any connections at all) has recently graduated from Harvard (he is a very bright kid) and already found a job which pays him 100K a year. He worked very hard to get his diploma, his parents worked very hard to help him to achieve his goals and they did it! They did it without whining, complaining and public crying.
I heard the same argument about gentrification when I lived near MacArthur Park, where during a neighborhood council meeting a woman - through a Spanish translator - complained that too many white people were starting to move in the neighborhood who don't respect her 'culture'. I took this to mean she liked throwing her garbage on the street instead of a trash can, that her kids should be able to enjoy the 'art' of tagging graffiti on other's property, and that store clerks who don't speak Spanish are racist (yes, this actually happened at the local Rite-Aid).
She sounds like a racist. The politicians should give her free classes on how to appreciate the cultures of her neighbors and appreciate Diversity.
Speaking of easy racism by lefties (and I'm a lefty myself), Maxine Waters, I think it was, accused immigrant Korean-American store owners of being thieves (I think the actual quote was something along the lines of, "they're taking money out of our communities"). And the black people who were shooting at Korean store owners and their employees weren't called the African-American equivalent of Klan members or South-Central a hotbed of redneck anti-Korean sentiment (which there clearly is among blacks there). In fact, Waters to this day continues to call the Rodney King riots "an insurrection," thereby implying that she views the thugs who were trying to kill store owners as some stripe of freedom fighter. Waters is as racist as David Duke. Let's just be honest here, only her main target is Asians and Asian-Americans rather than Jews and blacks.
What is the point of this article? It somehow ties the murder 2 students with redeveloping an aging commerical complex that would not displace anyone and improve the neighborhood (God forbid) with activists demands for local hiring and squashing market forces to keep the neighborhood "affordable' and then for good measure ties in the LACRA redevelopment efforts to keep USC in a neighborhood the author admits had "bloody gang violence, open dealing of hard drugs and the resulting decay". All this to get to a pre-determined conclusion USC acts like a fortress with little acknowledgment of the extensive community programs and outreach USC does with the surrounding community and schools.
Yes I agree . The University Village needs to be updated . I went to USC ,graduated in 2003 . USC Students AND I believe most of the community back then would have enjoyed having some decent retail in the area.
Mr. Berg,I've read your biased article. I have only two questions: 1)Are you satisfied as a journalist with your lack of research and biased approach on the subject matter? 2) Why did you include 1 quote from a University staff member who supports and 5 quotes from persons that opposed of this project? I believe you would have done due diligence in your work to interview a balanced 5 and 5 and allow the community to decide what's best for them through a balance and accurate reporting that is truly lacking in this article.
You may want to visit and take a refresher course: Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics http://www.spj.org/ethicscode....
Thanks for exposing the mindless leftist journalism of LA Weekly, which relishes tired leftist cliches over actual FACTS.
Blaming the MURDERS of the 2 Chinese USC students on 'unemployment' is absolute PC bullcrap. The murderous thugs who committed the murder could NOT hold down a job, unless it was making license plates at a STATE PRISON.
You Sir, are troubled. How can you reply to an article like this with this hooligan attitude?
As someone who knew families impacted by the recent murders, I find your characterization of this tragedy (and the quotes you used) gratuitous and upsetting. These families did more than just hear gunshots, they were impacted in ways that are unimaginable. Your characterization of USC as an "isolated fortress" is also just old and tired. Isolated fortresses don't invest over $32 million annually in the local community, don't allow local elementary and high school kids to take classes to take classes at USC, and don't allow families from as far as Pico Union to use the track everyday because parks in their neighborhood are not safe.
Aside from the academic hate standard in these comments, I can't help but wonder where the fine line stands of the University's responsibility for public safety ends, and LAPD/Individual safety begins?
Yes, the UV is in decay and whether or not the new UV will be just another Americana or LA Live remains to be seen, however, I believe that USC does what it can when it comes to accommodations. Other housing firms have moved into the Figueroa corridor and created complexes for students to live in, and the Icon Plaza is still pending.
While I do agree that housing is generally expensive, LAPD and USC PS is working on a University Park/West Adams joint venture to increase patrol, cameras, and up the safety. With the metro line in place, it should help students feel a bit more at ease. Still, a bit more "street smarts" helps.
For years USC has been an oasis among the mean streets and urban decay that surrounds it. While any loss in low income housing is unfortunate the community should be grateful to USC for it's community hiring, outreach programs, and a greater citywide vision of prosperity adjacent to a revitalized downtown los angeles.
or the poison that robs kids w $50,000 a yr tuition for a subpar degree and continues down the path of cheating and lying.
elite university? That's Stanford up north, and they win with high admissions standards and no cheating. Even UCLA costs 1/4th the cost and has much better academic and sports.
last time I checked USC was rated higher accademically than UCLA and we are not a burden to the tax payer. Souther California continues to be dominated by SC grads in business, finance, law, medicine, film making, sports, architecture, music, engineering and more. What's a bruin with a libral arts degree going to do? haha
Oh and USC has beaten UCLA in both academic rankings and in their all-sports competition for the past three years in a row. Also: 60% of USC's entire student body is on need-based financial aid. A separate 20% is on merit-based scholarships. USC annually devotes more than $100 million of its budget to grants and scholarships to it's students, including a number of programs for high achieving students from its local community.
Give me a break. USC posted a 18% admissions rate for this coming class. It's ranked in the top 25 nationally. It's film, business, medical, theater, music, accounting, architecture, and gerontology schools are all considered amongst the best in the nation. Let's see Stanford produce the stats they do now and educate 37,000 undergrad and graduate students like USC does.
Find everything you're looking for in your city
Find the best happy hour deals in your city
Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%
Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city
