Just a thought after I spent this afternoon at a meeting in "enemy territory"....

Anyone else think USC has an ugly campus? It has nothing on Cal/Furd/UCLA, and not just because of their god-awful location, but also the campus itself. It just seems so cramped and outdated, and even the new buildings they couldn't quite get right. (Kudos to those guys for shoehorning the new "Ronald Tutor Campus Center" into that small space so awkwardly)

Heritage Hall was cool. There, I said something nice about USC.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3901[/ATTACH]

I've always felt that the SC campus was similar to a community college. It has that same kind of feel just based on the layout and architecture.

It's not an attractive campus.

I was there last summer on a tour... my cousin and her kids were visiting from Paris, and she wanted to take her son to a college campus, so I went on the tour with them... first time for me. The campus is nothing special... it's also surrounded by a fence and the gates are closed at a certain time to keep out bad elements. The film school is sorta attractive, but it has nothing on Cal or UCLA. I also got a tour of the McKay Center which was pretty impressive.

The kid was impressed w/ the campus, and the whole time I'm thinking you ain't seen nothing yet.

If I was in professional school, particularly law or business, I'd rather be at SC than UCLA, and of course at Cal more than SC. But it is not nearly as attractive as Berkeley. It's in an area almost as bad as Columbia in NYC--where the cops stop you before you leave the subway station to find out: 1. if you know where you are; and 2. if you have a ride to where you are going.

1979bear;842392703 said:

---

If I was in professional school, particularly law or business, I'd rather be at SC than UCLA, and of course at Cal more than SC. But it is not nearly as attractive as Berkeley. It's in an area almost as bad as Columbia in NYC--where the cops stop you before you leave the subway station to find out: 1. if you know where you are; and 2. if you have a ride to where you are going.

---

Morningside Heights is nicer and less dangerous.

rathokan;842392702 said:

---

it's also surrounded by a fence and the gates are closed at a certain time to keep out bad elements.

---

Here's the story on that (and it ain't pretty)
LINK

510Bear;842392707 said:

---

Here's the story on that (and it ain't pretty)
LINK

---

In the comments, it says the gates are only closed from 9 PM to 6 AM. Not ideal but OTOH, when I lived down there and went to Raider games down there, it ain't the best or safest place...and I grew up in Oakland hanging in places most white boys wouldn't go. This ain't Pepperdine......

The campus is not great, but the surrounding neighborhood is just bad. And I don't mean in the classic south central-USC meme way, just generally unattractive & boring. No character.

I have been there several times and do like the intimate feel of the campus, but neighborhood totally sucks. I do like it much more than Furd though.

socaliganbear;842392720 said:

---

The campus is not great, but the surrounding neighborhood is just bad. And I don't mean in the classic south central-USC meme way, just generally unattractive & boring. No character.

---

USC's campus is nothing like a community college. Are you kidding?

There are some neat buildings with brick facades that date back to the 1920s, some maybe older. (I am not sure which is the oldest.)

It's not the prettiest but I've seen a LOT worse.

The surrounding area (West Adams) actually has quite a bit of interesting architecture as it was very wealthy at the turn of the century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Adams,_Los_Angeles#mediaviewer/File:Stimson_House,_Los_Angeles.JPG

Hate the campus but the McKay Center is pretty nice. If you have the opportunity to take a tour of the entire building, including all the underground facilities, it is pretty nice. Lots of money poured into that center

Uh no. USC is one of the nicer campuses in the country...

The surrounding area isn't nice tho...

kcal9;842392732 said:

---

Hate the campus but the McKay Center is pretty nice. If you have the opportunity to take a tour of the entire building, including all the underground facilities, it is pretty nice. Lots of money poured into that center

---

I got the tour... and I was wearing my Cal hat :-D

They have a pretty impressive video wall above the foyer that they use as a showcase to wow recruits.

dimitrig;842392730 said:

---

USC's campus is nothing like a community college. Are you kidding?

There are some neat buildings with brick facades that date back to the 1920s, some maybe older. (I am not sure which is the oldest.)

It's not the prettiest but I've seen a LOT worse.

The surrounding area (West Adams) actually has quite a bit of interesting architecture as it was very wealthy at the turn of the century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Adams,_Los_Angeles#mediaviewer/File:Stimson_House,_Los_Angeles.JPG

---

Que?

In fairness to USC, almost every college campus pales in comparison to Cal because of our unique architecture. I think USC has a very impressive campus. It is certainly superior to FUCLA. It is much better than Notre Dame's which, outside of the Golden Dome building, looks like something you would see in the old Soviet Union. I also prefer USC's campus to Boston College which only has one or two impressive buildings. The campus is vacuum clean and the landscaping is perfectly groomed--unlike much of Cal's landscaping because we don't have the money to take care of it. When you talk about the bad surrounding neighborhood at USC, it might surprise you that USC is not on the list of Top 25 or Top 50 Most Dangerous College Campuses, but guess who's is? USC has unlimited funds for security---and to build buildings. Haters gonna hate.



http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-colleges-in-america-2012-11#1-university-of-california--los-angeles-25

NYCGOBEARS;842392706 said:

---

Morningside Heights is nicer and less dangerous.

---

Maybe 1979 bear hasn't been there since the 1970s or 80s, the area around Columbia gentrified in the 90s like most of Manhattan and kept getting fancier in the 00s. Is there any part of Manhattan that isn't gentrified now? It's also a lot less fun in terms of nightlife, I guess it's a double-edged sword.

bearister;842392747 said:

---

In fairness to USC, almost every college campus pales in comparison to Cal because of our unique architecture. I think USC has a very impressive campus. It is certainly superior to FUCLA. It is much better than Notre Dame's which, outside of the Golden Dome building, looks like something you would see in the old Soviet Union. I also prefer USC's campus to Boston College which only has one or two impressive buildings. The campus is vacuum clean and the landscaping is perfectly groomed--unlike much of Cal's landscaping because we don't have the money to take care of it. When you talk about the bad surrounding neighborhood at USC, it might surprise you that USC is not on the list of Top 25 or Top 50 Most Dangerous College Campuses, but guess who's is? USC has unlimited funds for security---and to build buildings. Haters gonna hate.



http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-colleges-in-america-2012-11#1-university-of-california--los-angeles-25

---

Yeah, the issue with the surrounding area is not that it is unsafe, but that it is generally lame. There is no cool vibe. So much so that USC is essentially building a college town from scratch right now. As is, the area is ugly and boring.

bearister;842392747 said:

---

In fairness to USC, almost every college campus pales in comparison to Cal because of our unique architecture. I think USC has a very impressive campus. It is certainly superior to FUCLA. It is much better than Notre Dame's which, outside of the Golden Dome building, looks like something you would see in the old Soviet Union.

---

I don't know....that's actually the impression I got after my latest trip to USC, especially after seeing Hoffman Hall and Waite Phillips Hall and countless other drab buildings stacked up right next to each other on USC's sad little square of asphalt.

USC does have a few buildings that kind-of-sort-of look like what you'd expect at a SoCal school with tons of money, but it's nothing like Furd, where signs of wealth are everywhere.

And although it's subjective, I doubt many people would say it's superior to UCLA's campus across town.

It reminded me of a large private High School campus but I only saw the quad.

bearister;842392747 said:

---

In fairness to USC, almost every college campus pales in comparison to Cal because of our unique architecture. I think USC has a very impressive campus. It is certainly superior to FUCLA. It is much better than Notre Dame's which, outside of the Golden Dome building, looks like something you would see in the old Soviet Union. I also prefer USC's campus to Boston College which only has one or two impressive buildings. The campus is vacuum clean and the landscaping is perfectly groomed--unlike much of Cal's landscaping because we don't have the money to take care of it. When you talk about the bad surrounding neighborhood at USC, it might surprise you that USC is not on the list of Top 25 or Top 50 Most Dangerous College Campuses, but guess who's is? USC has unlimited funds for security---and to build buildings. Haters gonna hate.




http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-colleges-in-america-2012-11#1-university-of-california--los-angeles-25

---

My son goes to USC, so I go there quite a bit. I agree with your comments. The campus is spotless. The school of Cinematography is particularly nice as is the new Annenberg Communication building. It does not have the character and the open space of the Cal campus which is #1 in my book, but I like it better then most others I've seen. Of course, there are also the co-eds who are extremely impressive as well.

dimitrig;842392730 said:

---

USC's campus is nothing like a community college. Are you kidding?

There are some neat buildings with brick facades that date back to the 1920s, some maybe older. (I am not sure which is the oldest.)

It's not the prettiest but I've seen a LOT worse.

The surrounding area (West Adams) actually has quite a bit of interesting architecture as it was very wealthy at the turn of the century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Adams,_Los_Angeles#mediaviewer/File:Stimson_House,_Los_Angeles.JPG

---

SC is not in West Adams, but there is some cool architecture in the area (quite a few old Vics).

With that said SC's campus is not bad, it's just kind of bland... in the way the way that Furd's campus is bland, but at least Furd has the feeling of vastness about it. At the end of the day, both campuses are way better than pretty much every other campus in California (excepting Cal's of course).

Word is that USC has purchased every available parcel of land from the northern edge of the school to the 10 freeway. They don't intend to remain hemmed in and they have the money to do something about it. How interesting is it that their alumni give gobs of money to the school, yet Cal with probably more alumni and many wealthy grads struggles to keep up?

concernedparent;842392768 said:

---

SC is not in West Adams, but there is some cool architecture in the area (quite a few old Vics).

With that said SC's campus is not bad, it's just kind of bland... in the way the way that Furd's campus is bland, but at least Furd has the feeling of vastness about it. At the end of the day, both campuses are way better than pretty much every other campus in California (excepting Cal's of course).

---

USC is not far from West Adams and the Stimson House (which I linked to) is at 2421 S. Figueroa Street. That's just a few blocks north of USC.

Most campuses in the Pac 12 are pretty nice.

Except ASU.

Agree, most Pac-12 campuses are nice and I like USC's campus. Was just in Boulder again last weekend & it's one of my favorites in the Fall.

I was not very impressed with ASUs campus either

Cal, ucla, stanford, UW have nice campuses
Haven't seen OSU, WSU, Colorado or Utah

rathokan;842392702 said:

---

The campus is nothing special... it's also surrounded by a fence and the gates are closed at a certain time to keep out bad elements.

---

Visited several SoCal schools (UCLA, 'SC, UCSB, Pomona, Occidental) on my college tour and only liked UCLA. The fence around 'SC really stood out as a huge turnoff. Had totally forgot about it until 30 years later when we parked on campus for a night game at the Coliseum. Don't see how they could possibly spin that as a positive element to prospective students.

Honestly, when forced to take the tour with my daughter (aprox 4 years ago) I thought it was nicer than I had anticipated. I think in my head I had set the bar pretty low...

HoopDreams;842392793 said:

---

I was not very impressed with ASUs campus either

Cal, ucla, stanford, UW have nice campuses
Haven't seen OSU, WSU, Colorado or Utah

---

CU Boulder is spectacular but it helps to have the Flat Irons as backdrop. I have only been on USC campuses once (grant meeting at their school of Ed). Nothing horrible but not striking. Of course I mostly am on the UCSD campus that makes Stalinist Russia look like high art.

bearister;842392747 said:

---

In fairness to USC, almost every college campus pales in comparison to Cal because of our unique architecture. I think USC has a very impressive campus. It is certainly superior to FUCLA. It is much better than Notre Dame's which, outside of the Golden Dome building, looks like something you would see in the old Soviet Union. I also prefer USC's campus to Boston College which only has one or two impressive buildings. The campus is vacuum clean and the landscaping is perfectly groomed--unlike much of Cal's landscaping because we don't have the money to take care of it. When you talk about the bad surrounding neighborhood at USC, it might surprise you that USC is not on the list of Top 25 or Top 50 Most Dangerous College Campuses, but guess who's is? USC has unlimited funds for security---and to build buildings. Haters gonna hate.



http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-colleges-in-america-2012-11#1-university-of-california--los-angeles-25

---

Personally I liked the USC campus more than the ucla campus primarily because i hate that big 8 lane highway that leads onto the ucla campus and med school.

USC's campus is compact which helps the feel of a "campus". But it is a bit too jammed together for my taste. And the architechture is a bit too homogeneous. But it it what one might expect for a rich-kid's school in SoCal/Orange County. It is so much smaller and with less diverse topography than Cal's and is therefore so much easier to keep clean. The beauty and atmosphere of Cal come with at a price--it is not so neat and clean.

I'm a big fan of NYU's campus. The campus often goes by its other name - Greenwich Village

One thing to consider. I've never felt unsafe on USC's campus even in the middle of the night.

When walking anywhere on the Cal campus at night (especially on the Rape Trail) I'm constantly looking over my shoulder and taking the long way around if I spot a group of suspicious looking guys in the direction I'm walking.

hanky1;842392694 said:

---

I've always felt that the SC campus was similar to a community college. It has that same kind of feel just based on the layout and architecture.

---

A community college with less ample parking.

bearister;842392747 said:

---

It is much better than Notre Dame's which, outside of the Golden Dome building, looks like something you would see in the old Soviet Union.

---

Never heard Notre Dame's campus described that way before. It may have its ugly parts, but the area with the Golden Dome, the Basilica, the Grotto, the Lakes, the law school, and South Quadrangle all looked like I would expect a "college" to look. The neo-Gothic architecture doesn't appeal to everyone, but I just wouldn't have equated that campus with Soviet era / brutalist style.

Now, their coach... brutalist it is.