It takes a village to preserve one

Despite the fact that the proposal and promise of USC Village was to strengthen local communities and employment for those in the local area, what we see today are students — and sometimes their families — enjoying $9 sandwiches from Dulce, raiding Target and Trader Joe’s, and spending absurd amounts of money on acrylic sets at Simply Nail Bar. The likes of CorePower Yoga or Greenleaf are clearly marketed to bright-eyed, wealthy young people and not to families or community development — the ability for others to partake in the neatly contained clique that is USC Village is nearly impossible.

As someone who grew up in the Chicago suburbs unnecessarily plagued by Los Angeles horror stories, I was just one of many students who solely listed residential colleges in USC Village when it came to preferences on the housing application.

I mean, why wouldn’t I? I fell for the shimmering advertisement that is USC Village: a beautifully designed space complete with every possible essential a college student could need: grocery stores, restaurants, comfortable places to study and more. Plus, it caters all too perfectly to stressed, worried parents — mine especially — concerned about if their kid would have easy access to the things they need, if they would be surrounded by fellow students and if they would be safe.

Well, much to the surprise of no one, I was not assigned to one of the eight residential colleges in USC Village, because Lady Luck can only work so hard. However, I am now immensely grateful for it.

It has become overwhelmingly apparent that USC Village was specifically designed for USC students, who are infamously known for their wealth, and not the South Central residents in whose neighborhood USC makes its home.

According to Lauren Herstik of The New York Times, due to a “white flight” from racial violence in the 1950s and ’60s, along with riots in the ’90s, “Now mostly Latino, South Los Angeles’s two City Council districts are the poorest in the city,” which had seen little development prior to USC Village’s opening in 2017.

However, USC’s population is a direct divergence from the campus’ neighboring communities.

“By contrast, USC’s student population is markedly wealthier, and more diverse, ” Herstik wrote; USC’s annual undergraduate tuition and fees as of 2023 are $66,400 — an education alone easily eclipses South Central household’s median income of about $47,000.

And it’s obvious.

Ian Goldin, a professor of globalization and development (where), and global business correspondent Tom Lee-Devlin of The Economist explain that gentrification looks like converting space “into upmarket apartments for well-educated (and typically white) professionals. Former working-class housing has been renovated or redeveloped. Trendy cafes and bars have appeared, along with high-end fitness studios and organic food stores.”

Sounds hauntingly familiar.

Goldin and Lee-Devlin argue that “we cannot let our cities descend into islands of privilege amid seas of disadvantage. Thankfully, with the right policies and investments, a better, more inclusive and sustainable future is possible.”

When it comes to USC Village, instead of capitalizing on profitable businesses desirable mainly to students, one of the biggest solutions would be to reinstate shops and services that serve neighboring communities; not just students. For example, back when USC Village was known as University Village, or UV, prior to its demolition in 2014, there was a Dollar Store, $5 movie theater, Superior Grocers and more for all to enjoy; it served local families and students alike.

USC should prioritize preserving and embracing the community in which it makes its home, not forcing that community out. USC Village today permits and even encourages students to remain comfortable and content in the confining USC bubble instead of being part of the South Central community.

We should have a village. Not a fortress.