Long-vacant church gets religious owner of a different order

The historic Second Church of Christ, Scientist building on Adams Blvd near USC was just bought by the Art of Living Foundation, after sitting vacant for a number of years. The 100 year old building has become somewhat of a landmark in the North University Park neighborhood, and is notable for its wide-span oxidized copper dome and its soaring Corinthian columns. It was built in 1910 as the West Coast sister to Boston's First Church of Christ, Scientist, and has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 1986. The Art of Living Foundation, a 30 year old local spiritual group dedicated to yoga and meditaion, paid an estimated $10m for the property. A new-age Eastern religion taking the reigns from an older new-age Western religion? How LA.

Source: LA Times

University Gateway Nears Completion, Begins Leasing

University Gateway, the housing behemoth being built by Urban Partners, LLC in conjunction with USC, has begun leasing its units, about a year ahead of expected move-in. The 8-story complex will boast 421 apartment units accommodating 1,650 beds at a university in desperate need of local housing. The project, which sits on the corner of Jefferson Blvd and Figueroa St, replaced an open-air auto lot that was owned by Felix Chevrolet and Cadillac. The famed neon 'Felix the Cat' remains intact (thank God) across the street.

With construction completion scheduled for June of next year, the owners spared no time in starting to make lease options available fully one year before the 2010/2011 school year. The company has set up a leasing office in the University Village shopping center and claims it has seen lots of early interest. A large challenge will be to get the word out and convince students that they should choose the Gateway over other alternatives (especially considering the alleged cramped conditions and 7 ft ceilings). The university has come under enormous pressure to add beds both on- and off-campus to accommodate an increasingly residential student population. While USC will not manage the property, it will maintain pricing agreements with the owner and has exclusivity to ground level retail, which will include a university bookstore and gym.

With area housing largely derelict and in short supply, students who are not invited back to live in campus housing after their first year are forced to pay exorbitant prices for substandard conditions. The quandary peaked last year when USC was given ownership of the now-dissolved slumlord housing provider Conquest. In the legal battle, Conquest sued the Gateway project for failing to provide sufficient parking on- and off-site, but was counter-sued for monopolistic business practices.

Interestingly this summer, there appeared to be a housing surplus around campus, as mom-and-pop housing providers struggled desperately to fill units. This may be in part due to the university's recent completion of a large dormitory on campus, which has allowed USC to guarantee housing to all freshman and sophomore undergraduates. According to the Daily Trojan, some students have expressed trepidations about signing a lease without being able to see the finished project. Upperclassmen will remember all too well the housing purgatory of 2006, when residents who were promised a spot in the sold-out Tuscany were forced to hole up in a hotel downtown for weeks before moving in.

LA Coliseum—Decaying and Underutilized—Remains in Strict Public Control

State senator Jeff Denham (R-Atwater) published an Op-Ed in the LA Times Monday, calling for the sale of the coliseum by its public owners and the dissolution of the controversial Coliseum Commission. The LA Memorial Coliseum, built in 1932 for the Summer Olympiad, was registered as a historic landmark in 1984, the year of the Olympics' return to Los Angeles. But since a major retrofit that year, the stadium has been rapidly decaying and is used less and less frequently. The coliseum is owned by a confusing partnership between the city, the county, and the state - all of which have plunged into debt since the recession. The USC Trojans football team is the only large, long-term tenant at the stadium, and is desperate for a policy change.


Trojan fans will remember the anxiety-inducing negotiations last year that almost forced USC to temporarily play at rival UCLA's Pasadena Rose Bowl. When USC offered to buy into the coliseum's ownership, the commission not only refused, but threatened to evict the university as
a tenant. USC, frustrated with the government's inaction at the stadium's obvious disrepair, offered $100 million to help renovate (and partially own) the coliseum. Denham argues that the Trojans are the biggest stakeholders in the stadium and its future and should therefore have the right to own part or all of it.


Denham also reflects the growing confusion on the part of both lawmakers and the sports industry, as to why the debt-laden tripartite government "monster" would refuse a private investment for public gain. The Coliseum had hopes for outside intervention back in 2006 when Los Angeles bid to host the 2016 Olympic games - a US designation that was quickly and cruelly lost to Chicago. And for years politicians and developers alike have been struggling to attract a major league football team to return to the coliseum. But since the news of the cheaper and flashier stadium in City of Industry, that struggle has been rendered moot. Bottom line: the coliseum is a beautiful and much beloved historic landmark, but it is structurally unsafe and aesthetically dejected, and the public sector (all three of 'em) cannot afford to hold onto it, especially in these times.

USC Specific Plan Lambasted at Scoping Meeting

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.