Traffic Congestion with the USC
Village Project
While the
“University Village” project has received overwhelming support by the LA City
Council and local residents, I see massive increases in traffic and almost
non-existent supplies of additional parking as a serious issue [2]. The plan is to demolish the Cardinal Gardens and Century
Apartments (a total of 1,115 units), and replace it with a much more efficient
use of space providing housing for up to 5,200 students and 250 faculty/student
family apartments in a variety of housing types including studios to four
bedroom units, along with 350,000 sq ft of retail [1]. While the development claims shopping and enjoyment for
local residents as well, the design seems to leave almost no room for customer
traffic flow or parking.
Developers
and USC officials claim the project will create 12,000 new jobs with 8,000 of
those being permanent which will add further to the issue of congestion [1]. Not to mention, the lower part of Hoover Street will be
removed, Jefferson Blvd is being reduced
to 2 lanes, and USC may be removing 1-2 parking garages on the North side of
campus fairly soon for aesthetic reasons [1]. With this layout, thousands of student-residents and
employees will being exhausting any residual parking, leaving stand still type
traffic on Vermont, Jefferson, and Figueroa with little to no parking
availability for local consumers.
Essentially, the current design of
the University Village only leaves room for pedestrian access. Which defeats
the purpose of the “local residents” affairs. Not to mention, street parking in
local neighborhoods will be further invaded by student and customers then they
already are, and traffic will be very slow for bus travel. While local residents
living within a ¾-1 mile vicinity may be able to walk, it will be too far for
the majority. While the development will enhance the economic activity of the
area and provide much needed vendors, access for non-residents will prove
difficult without the addition of multiple parking garages/lots. Not to
mention, local residents and commuters will face large amounts of traffic congestion
even when they are not trying to visit the USC Village.
Work Cited
[1] USC Village. University of Southern California. 12
October 2013. Web. <village.usc.edu>
[2] “$1 Billion Village at
USC approved by LA City Council.” Los
Angeles Times. 10 October 2012. 12 October 2013. Web.
<www.latimes.com>
Whenever development is discussed in Los Angeles, the issue of parking can never be ignored. I think you make a good point by addressing that this increased development may not take into account the traffic needs of the local community. That being the case, I don't think that the alternative - being held hostage by never ending seas of parking lots - is very palatable. To take into account the new buildings, I think it is likely that the school will continue to upgrade flat parking lots into multi-leveled complexes. The lots on the far west of campus would be ripe for such a renovation and could probably service the additional UV traffic.
ReplyDeleteThe issues those in the community will have accessing the University Village highlights the motives behind the development. Although the school says the Village will be community and college student friendly, the details within the plan speak differently. From bus access to stores that won't suit both groups, it's becoming clear that the development is purely for students. The Village will give USC more of the college town feel, but it will lead to more encroachments in the community.
ReplyDeleteWith the increasing growth of the student population and while trying to increase the living spaces to accommodate these students, the “University Village” project sounds like a great solution. It is also eminent that bringing additional living units will increase the population; therefore creating additional traffic.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one solution would be to change the two-way streets surrounding the village to one-way streets forcing the traffic to move in one direction. In addition, the number of lanes should be increased to allow for fluid traffic flow. One-way streets would also provide greater safety for pedestrians. As far as parking spaces, adding a few stories to the existing parking lots might provide an immediate solution without having to build additional lots in the surrounding areas where space is already limited. These are just a few suggestions I would give to the architectural experts that sometimes in efforts to generate an allure or aesthetic appeal to their plan, do not make the most practical decisions in design.