Last Wednesday night, USC and the City of Los Angeles participated in an early part of the EIR and CEQA process – the public scoping meeting. The meeting, which was presided over by the district’s city planner Arthi Varma, was split into three segments. In the introduction, Varma outlined the intentions of the university in its expansion into university-owned properties to the north, south, and east of the core campus. Then the attendees, who included students, community residents, and local business and property owners, were encouraged to mingle about the various information tables and ask questions of the university’s representatives. Lastly, and most time-consuming, was the community feedback forum, where attendees were given the opportunity to voice their concerns and suggestions for the expansion.
The statements, which were limited to two minutes, consisted mainly of frustrated community members who condemned the university’s expansion. A number of heartfelt testimonies of displacement and gentrification were met with fervent applause, which was technically forbidden. There were a number of speakers who supported the university, especially its community outreach activities, but these speeches were not as passionately received. Almost nothing was heard from local property owners, who must be concerned about a potential vacuum created in student demand if the university accommodates more students.
For better or worse, as the chief employer and investor in this downtrodden neighborhood, USC has the upper hand. New construction will only take place on property already owned by the university – it is not interested in (nor can it afford) acquiring new outlying properties. USC is responding to higher demand created by a student population that increasingly wants to live near campus. Of course construction of this scale will have effects outside of its bounds, but that is one of the side effects of densifying cities. Whosever side you are on, it is of interest to note that almost nothing was said of the actual environmental impact of the project, except for a brief mention of increased traffic on Jefferson Blvd.
PS. Student housing is one of the only recession-proof development investments…as pockets flatten, enrollments bulge. So if you’re not in there, get in.
The statements, which were limited to two minutes, consisted mainly of frustrated community members who condemned the university’s expansion. A number of heartfelt testimonies of displacement and gentrification were met with fervent applause, which was technically forbidden. There were a number of speakers who supported the university, especially its community outreach activities, but these speeches were not as passionately received. Almost nothing was heard from local property owners, who must be concerned about a potential vacuum created in student demand if the university accommodates more students.
For better or worse, as the chief employer and investor in this downtrodden neighborhood, USC has the upper hand. New construction will only take place on property already owned by the university – it is not interested in (nor can it afford) acquiring new outlying properties. USC is responding to higher demand created by a student population that increasingly wants to live near campus. Of course construction of this scale will have effects outside of its bounds, but that is one of the side effects of densifying cities. Whosever side you are on, it is of interest to note that almost nothing was said of the actual environmental impact of the project, except for a brief mention of increased traffic on Jefferson Blvd.
PS. Student housing is one of the only recession-proof development investments…as pockets flatten, enrollments bulge. So if you’re not in there, get in.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment