OPINION: Grand Central purchase reflects culture of gentrification

Grand Central Market has been a cultural landmark for Angelenos and visitors alike since it was founded in 1917. Today, the historic space is surely a manifestation of the cultural diversity of Los Angeles with its vast array of vendors, but it is also representative of the socioeconomic inequities that exist within the city.

Shortly after its centennial in Fall 2017, Grand Central Market was acquired by Adam Daneshgar, a Beverly Hills investor and graduate of USC Price School of Public Policy’s Master of Real Estate Development Program.

Though Daneshgar intends to refinish the infrastructure and implement a concierge in the market, among other things, his visions are centered more on preservation than reinvention. In an interview with USC News, Daneshgar said, “The market is great as it is. The essence doesn’t need to be changed. It’s raw, it’s historic — but it could use a modest enhancement while maintaining its charm and roots to its history.”

Yet, since Grand Central Market’s inception in the early 20th century, it has undoubtedly undergone dramatic changes, though perhaps unknowingly. Grocers and small eateries can still be found, but the market’s primary source of revenue and commercial income are likely the expensive juice bars and coffee shops, the trendy multicultural eateries, the urban, Instagram-worthy spots like Eggslut and McConnell’s Fine Ice Cream.

The growing attraction to these types of vendors is likely a direct result of the changing landscape surrounding Grand Central Market. While Daneshgar predicts that the nearby Angels Landing project — which will create 500 hotel rooms, 400 apartments and 200 condos across the street from Grand Central Market — will increase tourism at the market, it will also inevitably displace populations that have resided for generations in that very part of downtown Los Angeles. These are communities that once relied on the market for their livelihood but can now no longer afford much of what Grand Central Market has to offer.

That Grand Central Market can no longer serve the populations it once did speaks to the greater issue of gentrification in the Los Angeles area. To preserve this establishment, therefore — at least in the way that it presently exists — is not only to adapt to the evolving demographics of L.A., but also to uphold a system through which poorer, native communities are expelled from their homes, left struggling to seek affordable living spaces and vendors that likely no longer exist for them.

With the recent development of USC Village, USC has similarly contributed to the gentrification of Los Angeles.

Although USC Village is open for all individuals, it is inaccessible to many members of the neighboring community: The 25 new retailers, which include KAITLYN, Sunlife Organics and Wahlburger’s, boast services and products that are widely unaffordable, thereby elevating local costs of living to the point that once-local individuals are driven out of their homes.

However, this is not to neglect some of the University’s efforts to help the surrounding community. In fact, during the development of USC Village, the University created roughly 800 jobs for those living within a five-mile radius of campus, and USC additionally invested $20 million into creating affordable housing nearby.

Yet, it is also necessary to recognize that these measures are temporary fixes that may be undone in time.

Moving forward, the University must begin by acknowledging its role in uprooting some of the populations around it. While it’s too late to remove USC Village and undo the gentrification that has resulted from its construction, the University can at least acknowledge what it has done — and then work to help surrounding communities, perhaps through continued donations, the establishment of affordable housing or mandated efforts to employ locals. Continued support for USC’s neighboring community is clearly needed, and it is time for the University to respond.