From the Bay to LA: inadequate housing follows
I’m from San Jose, California — specifically from Seven Trees, a neighborhood in the Southside that greatly resembles South Central. Both of these communities don’t fit the cookie-cutter image of the imagined extravagant cities in the Bay Area or Los Angeles County. Seven Trees is “unsafe” — due to historically high levels of gang activity. Seven Trees is “dirty” — because of the tent-lined sidewalks and trash-filled roads.
However, a less than 10-minute drive outside of the area are spotless streets, even pavements and gated communities planted on the San Jose hills — the contrast of the comfortable living becomes stark, almost saddening.
Moving to L.A., I see the same thing. As neighborhoods like Seven Trees and South Central undergo gentrification, the communities’ needs become erased.
Within a one mile radius of USC, eight apartments are directly mentioned on their individual websites to be “luxury housing” or have a “luxurious” style. These complexes include The Lorenzo, The Hub, The 505, 3025 Mansion, Oasis at the Row, The Riviera Luxe and Tuscany Apartments. Five of the eight alone were built within the last two years, with The Hub on South Figueroa Street and Oasis on 2714 Portland St to be constructed by Fall 2023.
The average minimum rent for a USC freshman is more than $1,700, which comes with a dining hall plan with unlimited swipes. In comparison, the minimum average rent for the complexes that provide a two-bedroom, four-person floor plan is $1,412. However, according to the Education Data Initiative, the average cost of food per month for a college student is $667, pushing the off-campus cost for “luxury living” to more than $2,000.
These abnormally high prices are justified by complexes’ modern, high-end building amenities. Yet, they act as glamorized dorms. For example, the 3025 Mansion is installing a new pilates studio for the upcoming school year. And a glance at The Lorenzo’s website shows their advertisement for their spa as its own amenity category.
However, true luxury, I discovered, is personal space. How my mom and I combatted the rising rent prices of Silicon Valley is staying at a run-down townhouse that we shared with our immediate family members. I distinctly remember that, at one point in my life, there were eight of us crammed into the three-bedroom, one-bathroom complex. Basic activities became hard to do with someone constantly in your space — studying, eating, even relaxing. I’m aware that multigenerational homes are part of Asian culture, but this wasn’t a choice we made willingly.
Financially struggling students lack this luxury — having roommates and suitemates, staying in an unfurnished, run-down space or commuting with a car or public transportation. The burden always falls on the students to make internal trade-offs to make ends meet.
While the University, “[does not] endorses or approves the landlord, its properties or business practices” of these apartments and various others, it continues to have them on its Off-Campus Housing 101 website — ads that apartment complexes pay for with their “first 30-day listing free of charge.”
The University should increase the off-campus financial aid given, which is usually an underestimate of what students actually need. With the recent $848 million investment for a Washington, D.C., campus, the money could’ve been allocated for building more off-campus housing, creating an off-campus housing infrastructure or giving students more money to live.
Even then, student’s financial aid is often miscalculated. In a survey conducted by Calmatters in 2019, researchers found discrepancies between the estimated costs and actual housing costs of California students. In using an older method of financial estimation, “the estimated monthly housing cost for a student living with their family in the 2020-21 school year would have been $369. The survey put it at $509.”
It feels as though there is a lack of understanding from the University regarding the significance of money as a dictator of decisions. Students shouldn’t need to negotiate their desires for comfort, privacy and safety to make attending USC affordable. USC is not a neutral party in the student housing crisis. The lack of affordable and accessible on-campus housing and its implicit cooperation with these management companies only exacerbate the issue.
Students don’t need luxury. We just need a place to live without it costing an arm and a leg.