or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › USC - please tell me about the area
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USC - please tell me about the area - Page 3

post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bachbeet
First, Palo Alto is much nicer than LA. And some of the areas nearby are very ritzy w/ expensive large homes. Stanford is a much better school than USC. I even like UCLA more than USC.

yes, the differences b/w the surrounding areas of USC/UCLA are different. A friend of mine lived near UCLA (while getting his Economics PhD) in the seventies for a very reasonable rent (apt near the 405 fwy). Yet, it was very near Bev Hills. So near, that when he was in a nearby market, he saw Suzanne Pleschette from the then popular Newhart show.

I attended Cal Poly, SLO. A beautiful area. Low crime (although prisons were nearby; one held, at that time, Huey Newton). More restaurants per capita than SF.

Another better school is Berkeley. Nice surrounding "college" area which is also near some expensive homes. Great academic reputation too.
By "LA" you presumably mean "downtown LA". Qualitative judgments about whether LA or Palo Alto is "better" aside, there's no shortage of ritzy homes/areas in LA.
Berkeley used to have a stellar academic reputation, but has been burdened over the last 15-20 years by its unfortunate association in the public mind with myself and a few of my college buddies . . .
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad
By way of example, I think housing prices in Palo Alto have more to do with the tech boom in that area that with the proximity of Stanford per se. However, the presence of Stanford certainly had at least some causal relationship with the area's becoming such a major center of gravity for the dot-com/tech industry.

I was thinking of that too, but it seems that Palo Alto market prices rose more than other NoCal cities that would have also appreciated from the tech boom. The rising tide did not lift all the cities to the same crest.

For example, why did Palo Alto become synonymous with affluence while Berkely became a symbol of a different sort even though both cities have two of the best universities in this country in their respective cities? Both Cal and Stanford grads were major contributors to Silicone Valley. I was thinking that Stanford helped drive up prices in Palo Alto by taking up so much land that it would limit supply and help drive up prices. But, that same phenomenon didn't occur with Berkely. Nor, does it really explain why Palo Alto became more desireable than its neighbors in the first place.

I think its interesting how some cities become labeled with having 'good location' and how that builds on itself to make that city even more desireable. But, how do those cities get that 'good location' in the first place?
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire.
I was thinking of that too, but it seems that Palo Alto market prices rose more than other NoCal cities that would have also appreciated from the tech boom. The rising tide did not lift all the cities to the same crest.

For example, why did Palo Alto become synonymous with affluence while Berkely became a symbol of a different sort even though both cities have two of the best universities in this country in their respective cities? Both Cal and Stanford grads were major contributors to Silicone Valley. I was thinking that Stanford helped drive up prices in Palo Alto by taking up so much land that it would limit supply and help drive up prices. But, that same phenomenon didn't occur with Berkely. Nor, does it really explain why Palo Alto became more desireable than its neighbors in the first place.

I think its interesting how some cities become labeled with having 'good location' and how that builds on itself to make that city even more desireable. But, how do those cities get that 'good location' in the first place?
Well, Berkeley is a bit more urban, being next door to Oakland and all that. Palo Alto is kind of the boonies. Stanford has bought up a bunch of land, but there's quite a bit of suburbia around it (or at least there was pre-boom). While both Cal and Stanford grads contributed to the Silicon Valley phenomenon, there was a lot more real estate available in Palo Alto for people to locate their business in. There's a historical reason behind Standord's nickname "The Farm". And I suspect (don't really know) that as a well-endowed private university Stanford was better able to be entrepeneurial and "partner up" with tech start-ups, thus forging close ties with that community. Plus, in general - and this obviously is a broad generalization - Stanford students (and thus grads) probably come from wealthier, better-connected backgrounds and thus may have been better positioned to start their own businesses.
Plus so many of us Cal grads had our spirits broken by so many ugly Big Games and had to flee the Bay Area and seek years of therapy before we could come to terms with our shame.
Dammit, we had such high hopes for Russell White. But I'm ok with it now, I really am.
post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad
Dammit, we had such high hopes for Russell White. But I'm ok with it now, I really am.
You sound disappointed with Russell White. What happened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad
Plus so many of us Cal grads had our spirits broken by so many ugly Big Games and had to flee the Bay Area and seek years of therapy before we could come to terms with our shame.
Well, at least, you'll always have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k0sNGY1EpA And, with Tedford coaching, Cal is going to be a major force in the Pac-10 for years.
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire.
You sound disappointed with Russell White. What happened?



Well, at least, you'll always have this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k0sNGY1EpA

Plus, with Tedford, Cal is going to be a major force in the Pac-10 for years.
LOL. I was joking about Russell White. When I was an undergrad, he was a prize recruit at tailback. One of the most highly-recruited running backs out of high school, the next Walter Payton/Jim Brown/O.J. Simpson (ok, bad example), etc. and touted as the essential first domino in a long-awaited resurgence by the Cal football program. Then, when he had to come in under "Prop 48" because his standardized test scores and/or high school grades were so poor that he otherwise would not be eligible, much handwringing ensued about the relative importance of athletics and academics. (To be fair to Mr. White, I recall it later was discovered that he suffered from dyslexia.) Needless to say, while he did turn out to be a very good player, it wasn't quite the dawning of the Cal Era in college football. (Not, of course, something than can fairly be laid at White's feet.)
To be honest, I've always been more of a basketball fan than a football fan, so I 'm not the most reliable source for Cal football history. And Dave Butler (Cal) was a much better basketball player than his younger, tall brother Greg (Stanford). So there!
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad
LOL. I was joking about Russell White. When I was an undergrad, he was a prize recruit at tailback. One of the most highly-recruited running backs out of high school, the next Walter Payton/Jim Brown/O.J. Simpson (ok, bad example), etc. and touted as the essential first domino in a long-awaited resurgence by the Cal football program. Then, when he had to come in under "Prop 48" because his standardized test scores and/or high school grades were so poor that he otherwise would not be eligible, much handwringing ensued about the relative importance of athletics and academics.

No wonder Cal's football program has lain dormant for so many years. There's not one major college football program that doesn't sacrifice academics to get the players it needs. Even the Ivy League schools do this even though they don't give out athletic scholarships.
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire.
No wonder Cal's football program has lain dormant for so many years. There's not one major college football program that doesn't sacrifice academics to get the players it needs. Even the Ivy League schools do this even though they don't give out athletic scholarships.
Actually, it happens at Cal, too.
post #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad
Actually, it happens at Cal, too.
That's what I meant to say. I was just pointing out that with all that handwringing and debate over the role of athletics in academia, the Cal sports program probably bowed down to departmental pressure and wasn't able to get the atheltes it needed to compete. They still recruited, but they couldn't get anybody as blatant as White again. (To be fair to White- after googling him up, he turns out to be what college athletics should be about. Rather than coming out early and getting drafted in the first round for major signing bonus money, his education was so important to him that he stayed four years and graduated even though it cost him millions of dollars when he ended up getting drafted in the third round the next year.) As much as Notre Dame pretends otherwise, it still sacrifices academics to recruit its football players.
post #39 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire.

Did UCLA and USC come first, or was their surronding neighborhood already established at that point?

Both USC and UCLA came before any neighborhoods were really established. USC was founded 1880, and basically grew with the city. UCLA was founded in 1919, but at a campus on Vermont Ave. closer to downtown. It moved to westwood in 1929. At the time westwood was basically farmland with little development.


Back in the day, the West Adams district was the Beverly Hills of LA. Once fast cars and highways began to emerge, people began to move west. And the area was left to die. The university has enough influence to make the immediate area livable, but more than a few blocks away and it's up to socioeconomic forces beyond any one entity's control. Luckily the area is old of enough to be historic and there are signs of renewal.
post #40 of 43
wow, awesome pics
post #41 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrojanGarb
Both USC and UCLA came before any neighborhoods were really established. USC was founded 1880, and basically grew with the city. UCLA was founded in 1919, but at a campus on Vermont Ave. closer to downtown. It moved to westwood in 1929. At the time westwood was basically farmland with little development.


Back in the day, the West Adams district was the Beverly Hills of LA. Once fast cars and highways began to emerge, people began to move west. And the area was left to die. The university has enough influence to make the immediate area livable, but more than a few blocks away and it's up to socioeconomic forces beyond any one entity's control. Luckily the area is old of enough to be historic and there are signs of renewal.
BTW, for anyone with an interest in architecture and/or urban history, the West Adams district of Los Angeles is still home to some stunningly beautiful homes in the Craftsman and Green & Green styles. Many, unfortunately have deteriorated, been gutted to create multi-unit rentals, etc., but some have been lovingly maintained and restored.
post #42 of 43
Several dozen G&G's were demolished after WW2 in Pasadena alone, which I find incredibly sad and thoughtless.
post #43 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton
Several dozen G&G's were demolished after WW2 in Pasadena alone, which I find incredibly sad and thoughtless.
Agreed. My dad, who works for LA's Community Redevelopment Agency, has been involved in relocating several G&G homes that otherwise would have been demolished to the West Adams area, where there is a strong preservationist/heritage community. It's pretty impressive seeing them throw a whole house on the back of a truck and haul it across town.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › USC - please tell me about the area