Drexel Dining recently announced its partnership with Too Good to Go, an app that connects users with local businesses offering surplus food that goes unsold at the end of the day for heavily discounted prices. By joining the platform and supporting its mission to combat food waste, several Drexel Dining locations now expand the range of University City spots where students and residents can find affordable, sustainable meals.

Founded in Copenhagen in 2016, Too Good to Go has expanded across continents and grown in popularity over the past nine years to over 100 million registered users. The company operates with a model meant to benefit everyone: users enjoy quality food at lower prices, businesses earn revenue from the surplus that would otherwise go to waste and the environment is spared from unnecessary food waste.

As of this month, the following popular Drexel dining spots are live on the app: Chick-fil-A and The Market at Northside Dining Terrace, Pret a Manger and the Starbucks in Gerri C. LeBow Hall. 

The app works by allowing stores and restaurants to release a number of Surprise Bags filled with a mystery selection of unsold but fresh items that would otherwise be discarded at the end of the day. Users can browse the nearby options, reserve a bag when it becomes available, pay through the app and pick it up at a designated time. These bags are typically priced at 25 to 50 percent of the original retail value. In addition to money saved, the app shows users the total positive environmental impact of their saved meals.

In addition to the newly added Drexel Dining locations, a growing number of restaurants and cafes in University City have made their mark on the app. Savas Brick Oven Pizza and Mad Greek’s Pizza on Lancaster Avenue offer daily Surprise Bags, as does Madis Coffee Roasters, a popular cafe further down the street. Other local shops, like Top Hat Coffee Lounge at 32nd and Walnut and T.UNI Tea Cafe at 34th and Walnut, which serves bubble tea, also participate. Breakfast spots such as Schmear It and Bart’s Bagels have become particularly popular among app users.

For many students, Too Good to Go offers a convenient and affordable way to access food, especially while navigating the financial challenges that inevitably come with college life. Its appeal lies in both the enticingly low cost and the simplicity, with portions that can often stretch across multiple meals being only a few taps away.

Madhu Karuppiah, a third-year Biomedical Engineering major, shared her experiences using the app: “I’ve always gotten more than what I paid for, more bang for my buck,” she said. “I always think, if I’m going to spend five dollars to get a cup of coffee, I might as well get more out of it.”

However, the app comes with a degree of unpredictability; you never know what you might receive in your Surprise Bag. Because the contents of each bag depend on the day’s leftover food, users with dietary restrictions may find it hard to rely on the app regularly. While participating businesses provide a short description of what to expect, specifics are not guaranteed.

Savas Brick Oven Pizza, for example, notes: “This bag might include pizza, just side portions, and/or whole dishes depending on what is available!” Top Hat Coffee Lounge writes that their bags may contain “pastries, iced coffee, or a mix of both!” Bart’s Bagels reminds customers to “Embrace the surprise and please remember that specific preferences and variety are not guaranteed!”

“I think there’s a lot of people who think that Too Good to Go is food that’s going bad, but it’s not,” Karuppiah noted. “Maybe the food’s not heated up, but that’s a simple fix.” 

She also shared a positive experience with T.UNI Tea Cafe: “From the bubble tea place, I got three  drinks for $7… it’s awesome because I tried drinks that I would have never tried otherwise for less.”

Milind Sangani, a third-year student majoring in Biological Sciences and a Too Good to Go user, shared that he found the value unmatched but noted the challenge of portion sizes. “My friend told me about Too Good to Go when I was at work, and then we tried it out with Schmear It. They gave me a lot of bagels, about 10, so it was very worth the price. However, since I’m one person, I found that I couldn’t finish them all.”

Both students emphasized the appeal of convenience. “This makes it much easier for people who maybe can’t afford to eat out every day but also want to get a treat every once in a while,” said Karuppiah. 

Sangani agreed, saying, “I like that they’re partnering with places that are conveniently on campus because it helps not having to travel a long distance for cheaper food.”

As the cost of living continues to rise, balancing academics, expenses and daily needs is becoming increasingly difficult for college students. Too Good to Go offers a practical way to stretch the budget while supporting sustainability. Drexel’s partnership is a step towards reducing waste and making good food more accessible to students and community members.

Justin Best, a rower and graduate of Drexel’s class of 2019 and recent Olympic gold-medalist, has been announced as the university-wide commencement ceremony speaker.

In the 2024 Olympic Games, Best won a gold medal in the men’s coxless four, a four-man boat race. The last time the United States won gold in this event was in 1960. Best has been rowing since he attended Unionville High School in Kennett Square, PA, and competed in the US Junior National Team. As a member of Drexel’s team, he contributed to rowing victories such as four team titles at the Dad Vail Regatta on the Schuylkill River and the Henley Royal Regatta in England.

Before joining Team USA in the Olympics, Best was selected to the U23 National Team in 2018 and 2019, winning the men’s eight world championship in 2018 and setting a world-record time of 5:22.48 for 2,000 meters.

However, rowing was not Best’s sole venture at Drexel. He graduated early from the LeBow College of Business and the College of Engineering and, in 2020, worked as a business analyst at the software company Splunk. He presently works as an analyst at the San Francisco investment bank Union Square Advisors. 

According to interim president Denis O’Brien, “Justin credits his education and experiences at Drexel with giving him the ability to understand both the technology behind his clients’ work and the financial strategies that drive their growth.”

Best has shared that he is “extremely excited and honored” to be the keynote speaker at Drexel’s 2025 university-wide commencement.

The Carnaval de Puebla is a prominent annual South Philadelphia festival commemorating Mexico’s triumph in the Battle of Puebla, a significant event of Mexican history. During the festival, individuals dress up in historical attire and traditionally dance to lively music while eating authentic Latin cuisine. Unfortunately, the organizers canceled the beloved event this year due to widespread fear in response to recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests. The reasoning given was that, by attending the festival, many guests fear being potential targets for deportation by ICE.

Estimates of undocumented individuals are generally tenuous, but according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, large concentrations of non-citizens live in the Tri-State area. This includes Philadelphia, where there are an estimated 47,000 undocumented individuals, as well as an additional 440,000 estimated to live in New Jersey, the bulk of whom have roots in Mexico. Undocumented people from all ethnicities and backgrounds have shared their concerns with  Carnaval organizers. 

President Donald Trump has initiated what he claims will be the most extensive deportation drive in U.S. history, deporting millions of immigrants from the country. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, ICE has conducted arrests at several Philadelphia locations, notably at popular and local businesses, causing many undocumented workers to abandon their employment for fear of being deported.

This is not the first time organizers have canceled the festival due to ICE concerns. As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer, attendees were scared for their safety following Trump’s first administration, and even called organizers to express their fear. 

The celebration was slated to take place on April 27 — as it does every year — but due to the cancellation, the previously expected 15,000 people will be unable to attend. When asked by CNN, Olga Renteria, a committee organizer, reiterated that the community feels unsafe and would prefer not to take any chances this year. 

Deportations in Philadelphia, particularly in Northeast Philadelphia, have increased and have shown no signs of slowing down. According to CBS News, ICE raided a car wash in North Philadelphia in January, detaining many workers on allegations of unlawful labor exploitation. Another instance occurred in late February when four Brazilian workers at the Jumbo Meat Market in Northeast Philadelphia were arrested due to their unclear legal status, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. 

While individuals are afraid of being in public places or huge groups, it is unclear what will happen at future festivals or gatherings. Nonetheless, the organizers have said there may be a smaller celebration around the same time for those that are willing to attend. Although nothing is definitive, the opportunity offers the community a sense of hope while helping to draw attention to local Mexican-owned businesses.

Shortly after being sworn in for his second term as president of the United States, Donald J. Trump explained his plans to enforce a multitude of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods used to protect domestic industries from foreign competition and encourage citizens to consume local products. However, such tariffs often have the effect of increasing the costs of what consumers buy when the added tax on companies is passed on to students. This has a particular impact on college students with limited budgets, as Drexel students have shared. 

If enforced, one industry that will be impacted severely is U.S. automobiles. This is not the first time Trump has used tariffs to protect domestic industries. During his first term as president in 2018, Trump imposed tariffs on imported steel from all countries except for Canada and Mexico, which are major U.S. steel suppliers. With his current return to office, Trump expanded on these tariffs to include Canada and Mexico. Steel is a key component for consumer goods, like cars, and these tariffs could potentially lead to higher prices for consumers.

In February, Trump announced an auto tariff of 25 percent. 

According to Reuters, he has argued “U.S. automotive exports in foreign markets have been unfair, citing the European Union collects 10% on vehicle imports – four times the U.S. car tariff rate.” 

Trump also mentioned tariffs on semiconductor chips, tiny electronic devices that are essential for modern vehicles. For a while, the manufacturing of chips has been outsourced to Asia, but Trump’s plan to improve America’s economy includes reducing reliance on foreign suppliers to strengthen domestic production. 

In response to his tariffs, second-year finance student Alicia Reeves said, “this would make her reconsider major financial decisions in the future,” primarily concerned with her student loans. 

“If you come from a lower income background it’s going to be more discouraging to see these prices increase because people already see car prices as unachievable,” Reeves said. “If you have the flexibility to pay more for a car then this would have a smaller effect, but as a student in college this definitely has me concerned for when I start working.”

If car prices increase, Reeves “would delay purchasing one” and, for the duration of her time at Drexel University, use the shuttle buses offered for travel. 

Imposing these tariffs has frightened U.S. automobile companies. Importing foreign cars at expensive prices will increase demand for domestic vehicles; it is basic supply and demand theory. This paired with the steel and chip tariffs could further intensify the effect. American steel manufacturers who outsource globally would have to increase their prices to stay competitive. As a result, U.S. automakers would be forced to raise prices to combat higher production costs. 

This could turn away customers and lead to a decline in purchases, “blow[ing] a hole in the US industry that we’ve never seen,” Jim Farley, CEO of Ford, said to investors.  

Diya Patel, a third-year finance student, is concerned about the impact of increased prices on students interested in Drexel’s coveted co-op program. 

She explained that “students will have to reconsider their internships and potentially give up opportunities they may have otherwise taken” due to the challenge of finding affordable transportation methods with higher automobile prices.

Kaltra Ailu, a third-year economics major, shared a similar sentiment: “I think higher car prices would change how students plan for big purchases after graduation, especially because jobs can be anywhere and with the current job market relocation is not much of an issue. This would definitely be a big factor that post-grad students would have to consider.” 

Beyond car prices, these tariffs can result in broader financial consequences. Upon announcing the auto tariffs, major automakers like Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Volkswagen all experienced a dip in their stocks. 

Wolfe Research analyst Emmanuel Rosner said to CNBC, “as it relates to Autos stocks, we do not see any absolute winners…and we expect Auto Stocks broadly to struggle.” 

“Stock market confidence is also important to consider,” Patel added. “I’ve heard students talking about tariffs around campus and how they don’t think car manufacturers will respond well once these are enforced. When talk like that starts to happen, you know something big is coming.” 

Farley followed up saying, “There is no question that tariffs at 25% level from Canada and Mexico, if they’re protracted, would have a huge impact on our industry with billions of dollars of industry profits wiped out and adverse effect on the U.S. jobs as well as the entire value system in our industry. Tariffs would also mean higher prices for customers.”

Yahoo Finance noted an immediate change in the stock market, reporting that Nvidia, America’s largest semiconductor firm, experienced a dip in their stock of about 5 percent after Trump’s announcement. Despite Nvidia’s large consumer base, the proposed chip tariffs coupled with tariffs on other imports that use their AI chips creates a climate of uncertainty.

According to CBS News, “the automotive industry is at a critical juncture, Michael Robinet, vice president of forecasting at S&P Global Mobility said. The proposed tariffs could not only inflate vehicle prices but also disrupt production schedules, with estimates suggesting a potential 30% decrease in production.” By imposing these tariffs, Trump aims to improve America’s economy through increasing U.S. manufacturing, protecting jobs, and raising tax revenue. While the economic benefits of these tariffs can improve domestic industries and combat the growing unemployment rate, there are potential consequences like decreased demand or strained foreign relations that are important to discuss. Once in effect, these tariffs will alter the current economic status of America’s automobile industry. In turn, students will be left with fewer transportation options in a time of widespread financial uncertainty.

Shortly after being sworn in for his second term as president of the United States, Donald J. Trump explained his plans to enforce a multitude of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods used to protect domestic industries from foreign competition and encourage citizens to consume local products. However, such tariffs often have the effect of increasing the costs of what consumers buy when the added tax on companies is passed on to students. This has a particular impact on college students with limited budgets, as Drexel students have shared. 

If enforced, one industry that will be impacted severely is U.S. automobiles. This is not the first time Trump has used tariffs to protect domestic industries. During his first term as president in 2018, Trump imposed tariffs on imported steel from all countries except for Canada and Mexico, which are major U.S. steel suppliers. With his current return to office, Trump expanded on these tariffs to include Canada and Mexico. Steel is a key component for consumer goods, like cars, and these tariffs could potentially lead to higher prices for consumers.

In February, Trump announced an auto tariff of 25 percent. 

According to Reuters, he has argued “U.S. automotive exports in foreign markets have been unfair, citing the European Union collects 10% on vehicle imports – four times the U.S. car tariff rate.” 

Trump also mentioned tariffs on semiconductor chips, tiny electronic devices that are essential for modern vehicles. For a while, the manufacturing of chips has been outsourced to Asia, but Trump’s plan to improve America’s economy includes reducing reliance on foreign suppliers to strengthen domestic production. 

In response to his tariffs, second-year finance student Alicia Reeves said, “this would make her reconsider major financial decisions in the future,” primarily concerned with her student loans. 

“If you come from a lower income background it’s going to be more discouraging to see these prices increase because people already see car prices as unachievable,” Reeves said. “If you have the flexibility to pay more for a car then this would have a smaller effect, but as a student in college this definitely has me concerned for when I start working.”

If car prices increase, Reeves “would delay purchasing one” and, for the duration of her time at Drexel University, use the shuttle buses offered for travel. 

Imposing these tariffs has frightened U.S. automobile companies. Importing foreign cars at expensive prices will increase demand for domestic vehicles; it is basic supply and demand theory. This paired with the steel and chip tariffs could further intensify the effect. American steel manufacturers who outsource globally would have to increase their prices to stay competitive. As a result, U.S. automakers would be forced to raise prices to combat higher production costs. 

This could turn away customers and lead to a decline in purchases, “blow[ing] a hole in the US industry that we’ve never seen,” Jim Farley, CEO of Ford, said to investors.  

Diya Patel, a third-year finance student, is concerned about the impact of increased prices on students interested in Drexel’s coveted co-op program. 

She explained that “students will have to reconsider their internships and potentially give up opportunities they may have otherwise taken” due to the challenge of finding affordable transportation methods with higher automobile prices.

Kaltra Ailu, a third-year economics major, shared a similar sentiment: “I think higher car prices would change how students plan for big purchases after graduation, especially because jobs can be anywhere and with the current job market relocation is not much of an issue. This would definitely be a big factor that post-grad students would have to consider.” 

Beyond car prices, these tariffs can result in broader financial consequences. Upon announcing the auto tariffs, major automakers like Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Volkswagen all experienced a dip in their stocks. 

Wolfe Research analyst Emmanuel Rosner said to CNBC, “as it relates to Autos stocks, we do not see any absolute winners…and we expect Auto Stocks broadly to struggle.” 

“Stock market confidence is also important to consider,” Patel added. “I’ve heard students talking about tariffs around campus and how they don’t think car manufacturers will respond well once these are enforced. When talk like that starts to happen, you know something big is coming.” 

Farley followed up saying, “There is no question that tariffs at 25% level from Canada and Mexico, if they’re protracted, would have a huge impact on our industry with billions of dollars of industry profits wiped out and adverse effect on the U.S. jobs as well as the entire value system in our industry. Tariffs would also mean higher prices for customers.”

Yahoo Finance noted an immediate change in the stock market, reporting that Nvidia, America’s largest semiconductor firm, experienced a dip in their stock of about 5 percent after Trump’s announcement. Despite Nvidia’s large consumer base, the proposed chip tariffs coupled with tariffs on other imports that use their AI chips creates a climate of uncertainty.

According to CBS News, “the automotive industry is at a critical juncture, Michael Robinet, vice president of forecasting at S&P Global Mobility said. The proposed tariffs could not only inflate vehicle prices but also disrupt production schedules, with estimates suggesting a potential 30% decrease in production.” By imposing these tariffs, Trump aims to improve America’s economy through increasing U.S. manufacturing, protecting jobs, and raising tax revenue. While the economic benefits of these tariffs can improve domestic industries and combat the growing unemployment rate, there are potential consequences like decreased demand or strained foreign relations that are important to discuss. Once in effect, these tariffs will alter the current economic status of America’s automobile industry. In turn, students will be left with fewer transportation options in a time of widespread financial uncertainty.

On Feb. 14, the Department of Education sent out a letter now known as the “Dear Colleague” letter. In this letter, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor stated that the Department of Education will no longer allow educational institutions to “discriminate against students on the basis of race.”  

This means removing race-affiliated scholarships, financial aid, housing and admission processes. The department gave K-12 and postsecondary educational institutions two weeks to remove their race-based programs or they run the risk of losing federal funding. Institutions use these programs to fund students’ educations for underrepresented communities, so they can achieve higher education. Many universities have found themselves complying or under review, including Drexel University. 

Interim President Denis O’Brien, shared an email on Feb. 19 stating that Drexel is “carefully assessing the implications of the DCL’s assertions…” and they “will formulate a plan to ensure its programs and activities continue to serve our community.” 

There is yet to be an update on what Drexel’s plan is, and there is not much to be known at the current moment. Regardless, students have concerns.

Student diversity club leaders and members may have to make changes, whether that would be club names or overall club adjustments. Although nothing is in full effect, this could greatly affect not only these clubs but also the Center for Inclusive Education and Scholarship programs, Student Center for Diversity & Inclusion services, Lindy Center for Civic Engagement and various other programs that share resources for underrepresented communities and minorities. Through these programs, students receive scholarships, BIPOC counseling centers, mentorship programs and diverse-focused events that include minorities and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. 

In response to Drexel’s statements, the president of the Drexel student organization Latinos for a United Campus said, “It could’ve addressed any questions that [students doing valuable research] may have or provide resources that [student leaders of identity-based organization] may need. That is definitely something that I would want to hear as a student leader of an identity-based organization, especially because things are so uncertain. It would be really nice to hear that from the higher-ups in administration.” 

Further, the LUC President stated that the letter is “…an infringement on students,” which can make this a major loss in their identity-based communities. 

Although there are many unanswered questions, organization leaders are hopeful: “We are like-minded people, powerful, and dedicated individuals to where if push comes to shove, we will know how to respond and we will continue our mission for each of our organizations, and will continue to do what’s right for our members.” 

More recently, federal judges have successfully stopped this executive order; however, nothing is official yet. Trump’s order is awaiting a response from The House, according to the Washington Post. As reported by NPR, many others, including the American Association of University Professors, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and other groups, filed lawsuits alleging that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments. Many people are opposed to this order, yet others are not. Many other colleges have followed this order and canceled any DEI-related initiatives. 

For most, this takes them back to 2023, when the US Supreme Court found that race-based college admissions were unconstitutional, according to CNN. Colleges and universities previously employed affirmative action to increase the enrollment of students of color at predominantly white institutions.

There are many unanswered questions for students, student leaders and colleges; no one knows what to expect. Drexel has yet to release another statement alerting students on their future plans, leaving the university community uncertain. Students stay positive as they anticipate what the future holds.

While teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, Laura Wolf-Powers, PhD, published a book titled, “University City: History, Race, and Community in the Era of the Innovation District” in 2022, highlighting the history of development and gentrification in West Philadelphia. Her research focuses on neighborhood revitalization and urban/regional economic development, with particular attention to how structural inequalities influence community development. Wolf-Powers is currently a professor in the Department of Urban Policy and Planning at the City University of New York, Hunter College. 

The following interview from December 2024 with Wolf-Powers has been edited for clarity and length. 

Gerard Johnson: How does Drexel University’s approach to gentrification and expansion differ from The University of Pennsylvania’s? How does their expansion affect the public sphere, citizenship, inclusion and exclusion?

Laura Wolf-Powers: Neither Penn nor Drexel would view itself or proclaim itself to be an agent of gentrification. Each institution believes it’s pursuing two compatible aims. For example, Penn, with its West Philadelphia initiatives in the 2000s, focused on creating an environment around its campus where students felt comfortable. 

Similarly, Drexel is trying to create, in the areas around its official campus, a place where students feel part of a neighborhood, along with people who work at companies that are part of the innovation districts. Again, I don’t think Drexel would call that gentrification; they’d label it “campus-adjacent development” that extends the university’s brand into the neighborhood, creating environments where people can thrive.

There’s a lot of contention around the idea of gentrification — what it is, what it isn’t, and

whether it’s positive. Drexel is extending itself beyond its campus as both a catalyst for economic development and as an outreach to communities of lower socioeconomic status. For example, the Dornsife Center reflects Drexel’s commitment to serving communities near the university.

At the same time, I don’t think it’s inaccurate to call these initiatives a form of gentrification. It definitely marked the territory as “university-associated.”

When Penn started the West Philadelphia initiatives and created the University City District, they used the concept of “clean and safe.” The question I’d pose is: “Clean for whom and safe from whom?” Safety is framed as universal, but it can lead to stratifying the population into those who need to be kept out to maintain that safety, and those who remain in the “zone of safety.” Even if that wasn’t Penn’s explicit intention, it was the outcome of creating the University City District and expanding police or security presence up to 42nd Street.

GJ: Logan and Molotch call the city a “growth machine” due to the capital flowing through metropolitan areas. You reference them in your work — how does their theory connect to your research, and how do you think universities leverage that concept to exercise power in cities?

LW: I find them very influential. Their classic “growth coalition” involves government and major property owners, as well as the building trades unions. Even if Logan and Molotch don’t explicitly include universities in that mix, it’s implied that universities are part of it. 

The reasoning is that universities are place-based: Penn and Drexel are very invested in Philadelphia being economically prosperous, and as a result, they’re interested in boosting the value of the land near them.

Logan and Molotch make a distinction between people who embrace the “use value” of land and those who embrace the “exchange value” of land. People who live in homes, or who run businesses that are tied to a specific city, are in Philadelphia because they live there or operate there. Their relationship to the land is about using it. That’s very different from seeing land as an asset to be exchanged—something you want to appreciate in value so you can sell it. 

In neighborhoods like Powelton Village, Mantua or Belmont, many residents live there because it’s their neighborhood. They want to stay, and to them, the main value of their property is that it’s a place to live. But to property investors, the value lies in how much they can sell it for after a few years if it appreciates. Logan and Molotch highlight this tension between use value and exchange value. It’s central to gentrification because some actors treat real property in terms of exchange value, while others — whose families may have lived there for generations — think of it in terms of use value. Those interests don’t align.

GJ: Is gentrification rhizome-like (web-like, decentralized, yet interconnected)?

LW: I think there’s something to the idea that gentrification can spread outwards, but I’d also add that gentrification involves layers. One of them is narrative, because there’s this idea of a poor neighborhood being “dangerous” or “unsafe.” Then people say it’s changing, it’s being revitalized, there’s renewal happening. People start talking about the neighborhood differently, and that interacts with another layer, which involves actual property transactions: vacant lots getting developed by investors or higher-income people moving in. There’s a class dimension here, because what makes the neighborhood “better” is that people of higher social status move in. People are heavily influenced by their prejudices about who’s worthy, virtuous or who’s a “valuable” resident. In general, that’s all very racialized. That can erase the longtime residents who may not have money to invest but do invest their time or commitment to their neighbors. Because that commitment doesn’t have a dollar value, it tends to be overlooked in the discussion of renewal, revitalization or reinvestment.

GJ: How is the gentrification unfolding in University City different from mid-20th-century urban renewal? Is it just another form of top-down redevelopment?

LW: During urban renewal, it was very top-down. The ethos of that era was that certain areas were slums, with an “undesirable” population that needed to be removed. There was no engagement with local residents. There was also no acknowledgement that these so-called “slum” areas had substandard housing largely because of racism in the housing market and the government’s tolerance of discrimination and exploitation by real estate entities and landlords.

Today, universities approach urban revitalization differently, at least in some ways. There’s an effort to include people from the affected neighborhoods in the planning process. Civic associations are consulted, and there’s a collective attempt to envision what the future of the neighborhood should look like. That’s progress. However, there’s still a tendency to stigmatize people of color with lower incomes and to conflate “Black neighborhood” with “bad neighborhood.”

Some things have changed since those days, and the Dornsife Center is a good example. It’s meant to uplift community members, help them find jobs at the universities or in nearby companies, promote literacy, provide legal assistance and public health initiatives and aim for co-prosperity. The idea is that while the university does its thing, there will also be progress in the neighborhoods — people achieving social mobility and so on.

That’s a significant difference from urban renewal, when the residents of targeted neighborhoods were ignored, denigrated and not taken seriously. Still, there’s a prioritization of developers’ and real estate investors’ interests over the needs of long-time residents who simply want to stay where they are with decent public services and good schools. That doesn’t get counted as “development.”

GJ: How have you observed the physical consequences of displacement, and how did those experiences affect you personally? What was the affective or emotional dimension of witnessing — or writing about — events like “funerals for homes”?

LW: Many people I interviewed described the “Funeral for a Home” to me. People I spoke with in Mantua and Powelton felt it acknowledged their experience in a way few other interventions had. That’s why I decided to feature a community meal image on the book’s cover. 

One displacement I observed happened at the University City Townhomes on 40th and Market. Around the time my book was published, the residents of U.C. Townhomes were informed that their homes would be demolished to make way for a new development. The city offered them vouchers, but they didn’t believe they could relocate to neighborhoods with anything close to the amenities they had in University City — better schools, a nearby grocery store and public transportation. Essentially, they were being expelled from a well-connected neighborhood that supported their social mobility.

As land value rises, the owners of the land — where the U.C. Townhomes stood — discovered it was more lucrative to sell than to continue operating it as affordable housing. People’s lives were affected, but the imperative to profit ultimately prevailed. 

GJ: Now that John Fry has left Drexel University, how do you think gentrification in University City will evolve? How would you rate his legacy in terms of gentrification?

LW: The general playbook for university-led development started with the West Philadelphia initiatives at Penn — John Fry worked there, went to Franklin & Marshall, then came back to serve as president of Drexel. In many ways, he tried to import what he had done at Penn into the Drexel context and also improve on it. In some respects, he succeeded. I think Drexel’s interventions in the surrounding neighborhoods feel more authentic, more meaningful than a lot of what Penn has done. Drexel deserves a lot of credit for viewing its neighbors as partners — people who need to participate in the life of both the neighborhood and the university.

However, his shortcoming was not fully understanding that if you want to create stability and opportunity for people living around the university, you must keep land costs down. That might mean encouraging public acquisition of land or having nonprofits hold land so it stays out of the speculative market. 

As for successes and failures, I think Drexel launched a lot of impressive programs, such as the Dornsife Center, its partnership with the University City District, and the West Philadelphia Skills Initiative. But unless people’s land and housing costs remain manageable in one way or another, it will be difficult for them to live in these neighborhoods and enjoy the benefits of development, because housing and property taxes just keep going up.

GJ: Gentrification matters to many students in University City. How can we change the conversation, and what would you say to the Drexel student body about it?

LW: There’s an assumption that in every case, the market should lead neighborhood reinvestment. That has consequences — one being that land is viewed as an asset rather than a collective resource. I believe Philadelphia should be more ambitious in creating opportunities for land to be held collectively — non-commodified. If that happened, the development universities pursue would benefit everyone instead of providing most of the benefits to a few.

Students do benefit from what the university is doing. Drexel’s reputation and economic footprint are growing. But if students think of themselves as members of the local community — not just as Drexel students — they might see real property as more of a collective resource and less of a commodity. 

What I’d say to you and others concerned about gentrification is to keep elevating your perspective and exposing fellow students to it. That’s extremely valuable. The more you can broaden people’s horizons to recognize that the university’s actions do affect local residents, the better.

Drexel University is preparing for a significant academic overhaul that will reshape its curriculum, academic calendar and institutional structure, set to take effect in Fall 2027. As part of the Academic Transformation initiative, the university will transition to a semester-based system, consolidate academic units and redefine core competencies for students.

This transformation, sponsored by Provost Paul Jensen and steered by Vice Provost for Academic Strategy and Communications Amy Weaver, is being developed through five working groups: Calendar, Core Competencies, Curriculum, Academic Unit Integration/Alignment and Consistency. These groups, made up of members of the Provost’s Office, faculty and other key university leaders, are tasked with designing the implementation of changes that will impact both current and future students.

With such sweeping changes, students are left wondering: What happens to co-op? How will current students transition? How will the transition impact course availability and flexibility?

To gain insight into what this means for the university as a whole, the Triangle sat down with  Steven Weber, PhD, vice provost for Undergraduate Curriculum and Education and a key member of the transformation steering team. As a co-lead of the Calendar, Core Competencies and Curriculum working groups, Weber provided a close look at the coming changes.

The current push for academic restructuring stems from a comprehensive 2023 report from the University Advisory Committee on Academic Structure, which emphasized the need for more student flexibility and a streamlined academic structure. However, Weber acknowledged that the broader challenges Drexel faces also played a role. In the 2024 fiscal year, Drexel faced a $63 million operating loss, alongside a 15 percent drop in fall enrollment. These pressures, combined with national uncertainty for universities, make it clear that Drexel needs to become more competitive and sustainable in the long term.

“It’s evident that this is a hard time for higher education,” Weber said. “There’s lots of uncertainty in that sector. Part of it is long-standing trends, and part of it is more recent developments with the change in the presidential administration.”

The university sees the planned shift to semesters as a way to make Drexel more attractive and accessible to more students — an example being the large population of transfer students, particularly those from Philadelphia-area community colleges.

“Many students finish high school and go to community college for one or two years before transitioning into a four-year program, and the fact is that we’re at a natural disadvantage for attracting those students when we’re on a quarter calendar,” Weber explained.

Drexel’s quarter system has historically been a barrier for prospective transfer students; the university hopes that aligning its schedule with institutions like the Community College of Philadelphia will simplify credit transfers and make Drexel a more enticing option.

Weber shared that another goal for the transition from quarters to semesters is the alignment of Drexel’s academic calendar with not only other universities but also internal programs that already follow a semester model, such as Kline School of Law, which operates on semesters and the College of Medicine, which has multiple semester calendars.

For students, the transition raises different concerns about course flexibility. Under the semester model, students will take fewer but longer courses, which could limit their ability to double major, add minors or explore diverse subjects. 

Weber acknowledged this concern but pushed back against the idea that students would receive a diminished academic experience, stating, “You’re not getting less education. You’re just breaking up your education into different-sized buckets—smaller for quarters, larger for semesters.”

However, the shift inevitably means that instead of taking around 60 courses over 12 quarters, students will take closer to 40 courses over 8 semesters. While each course may cover more material in-depth, this change raises questions about whether students will have as many opportunities to customize their degree paths. 

In addition, while it may be the goal that every class becomes a deeper and more rewarding experience, Weber shared that “it would be outside the scope of my job here… to mandate or legislate what happens in the classroom. That’s at the discretion of the instructor, or the curriculum committee for the course department.”

Although, the university does plan to “incentivize and reward excellent teaching” by putting in place structures that foster “strong pedagogy, interdisciplinary teaching and learning,” Webber disclosed.

The biggest concern for many is the fate of the co-op, which has been at the heart of Drexel’s identity since its introduction in 1919. Initially designed to give students real-world experience while still in school, co-op has grown into the defining feature of Drexel’s experiential learning model.

“I also think that the thing that Drexel is known for is co-op, and we should continue to keep co-op as a centerpiece of our institution,” Weber emphasized. “It’s a central distinguishing part of our value proposition.”

Drexel’s six-month co-op cycle will remain unchanged under the semester system. Unlike Northeastern University, which offers four-month co-ops as an option to its students, Drexel has prioritized maintaining its signature six-month rotations.

“One thing that was not on the table was the six-month co-op. We’re not touching that,” Weber said.

However, the exact structure of co-op within the semester model has not been disclosed. While Weber confirmed that a solution has been worked out, he declined to share details, stating that the information has not yet been made public.

“We did make sure that everything still works, so nothing would break,” he assured.

In addition to maintaining current co-op structures (four-year, one co-op and five-year, three co-ops programs), Drexel plans to introduce a new five-year, two-co-op option. 

“Maybe you want to use some of your summers for something other than working or studying,” Weber said. “Maybe you want to go study abroad, travel, do an internship, or work at a nonprofit.”

The goal, according to Weber, is more flexibility in the student academic experience — a recurring motivator throughout the transformation.

Weber noted that while co-op will remain at the forefront, the university hopes to better highlight other experiential learning opportunities in which Drexel excels. 

“We do really well in research experiences for undergraduate students, global experiences, civic engagement and collaboration with local industry on projects. But prospective students and their families often aren’t aware of that,” Weber stated, emphasizing that part of the transformation’s goal is to ensure these opportunities are more visible and accessible. 

The hope is that “Recognizing there’s a broader landscape of experiential education beyond co-op… might broaden the appeal of Drexel to other students and their families for whom co-op doesn’t seem like the right mix initially.”

Beyond co-op, Drexel is also redefining core competencies, which will establish university-wide learning objectives — “hallmarks of a Drexel education,” as Weber describes — without enforcing a rigid core curriculum. Weber described them as a way to unify the academic experience while making it easier for students to change majors without losing progress.

“Drexel asks too much of an 18-year-old who doesn’t know exactly what they want to do,” he said. “There’s 14 schools and colleges, 120 degree programs, all manner of co-op opportunities… and you’re expected to decide everything before you start.” 

The intended result is that by standardizing key learning outcomes, students will feel less locked into rigid academic tracks.

A major aspect that comes along with the standardization of learning is course consolidation. Drexel plans to reduce redundancy in its course offerings by merging similar courses across departments. 

“We have many, many more [course variations] than we need,” Weber said. “This is an opportunity to redesign every single course to fit a semester model and consider—what makes sense?”

The idea is to create a more cohesive, less fragmented curriculum. However, the trade-off is that some niche or specialized courses may be eliminated or merged into broader categories, potentially limiting highly specific academic pathways. 

Faculty played a significant role in shaping the transformation through Faculty Senate nominations. “We put out an announcement to faculty and staff that there would be these five work streams, and we invited all faculty and staff to nominate themselves and describe their credentials,” Weber explained. 

Each workgroup has two or three co-chairs—always including at least one faculty member—and consists of six to eight faculty members alongside a small number of staff. 

However, when asked about how student voices are being included in the restructuring process, Weber shared that student involvement has been limited. Undergraduate Student Government Association representatives participated in one discussion. The majority of students have not had access to planning documents or contributed to any decision-making processes.

For students already enrolled at Drexel, the transition raises questions about how their degree progress will be affected. While specific details have not yet been finalized, Weber assured that the university is committed to a smooth transition.

“There is every commitment to make sure students are not in any way disadvantaged by living through that transition,” he said. “The details of that will have to be shared publicly in due course.”

Advising services will play a critical role in helping students navigate the shift. Drexel plans to provide clear written guidance to ensure students understand how their credits, schedules, and degrees will transfer into the new system. However, given historical student concerns about the reliability of academic advising at Drexel, it remains uncertain how smoothly this process will unfold.

As the Fall 2027 transition approaches, Drexel communication emphasizes that while this is a massive undertaking, it is meant to enhance, not disrupt, the student experience. 

“We will put out a transition plan that will work for the students, and the end result will be a better Drexel,” Weber affirmed.

On Feb. 14, the Department of Education sent out a letter now known as the “Dear Colleague” letter. In this letter, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor stated that the Department of Education will no longer allow educational institutions to “discriminate against students on the basis of race.”  

This means removing race-affiliated scholarships, financial aid, housing and admission processes. The department gave K-12 and postsecondary educational institutions two weeks to remove their race-based programs or they run the risk of losing federal funding. Institutions use these programs to fund students’ educations for underrepresented communities, so they can achieve higher education. Many universities have found themselves complying or under review, including Drexel University. 

Interim President Denis O’Brien, shared an email on Feb. 19 stating that Drexel is “carefully assessing the implications of the DCL’s assertions…” and they “will formulate a plan to ensure its programs and activities continue to serve our community.” 

There is yet to be an update on what Drexel’s plan is, and there is not much to be known at the current moment. Regardless, students have concerns.

Student diversity club leaders and members may have to make changes, whether that would be club names or overall club adjustments. Although nothing is in full effect, this could greatly affect not only these clubs but also the Center for Inclusive Education and Scholarship programs, Student Center for Diversity & Inclusion services, Lindy Center for Civic Engagement and various other programs that share resources for underrepresented communities and minorities. Through these programs, students receive scholarships, BIPOC counseling centers, mentorship programs and diverse-focused events that include minorities and members of the LGBTQIA+ community. 

In response to Drexel’s statements, the president of the Drexel student organization Latinos for a United Campus said, “It could’ve addressed any questions that [students doing valuable research] may have or provide resources that [student leaders of identity-based organization] may need. That is definitely something that I would want to hear as a student leader of an identity-based organization, especially because things are so uncertain. It would be really nice to hear that from the higher-ups in administration.” 

Further, the LUC President stated that the letter is “…an infringement on students,” which can make this a major loss in their identity-based communities. 

Although there are many unanswered questions, organization leaders are hopeful: “We are like-minded people, powerful, and dedicated individuals to where if push comes to shove, we will know how to respond and we will continue our mission for each of our organizations, and will continue to do what’s right for our members.” 

More recently, federal judges have successfully stopped this executive order; however, nothing is official yet. Trump’s order is awaiting a response from The House, according to the Washington Post. As reported by NPR, many others, including the American Association of University Professors, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and other groups, filed lawsuits alleging that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments. Many people are opposed to this order, yet others are not. Many other colleges have followed this order and canceled any DEI-related initiatives. 

For most, this takes them back to 2023, when the US Supreme Court found that race-based college admissions were unconstitutional, according to CNN. Colleges and universities previously employed affirmative action to increase the enrollment of students of color at predominantly white institutions.

There are many unanswered questions for students, student leaders and colleges; no one knows what to expect. Drexel has yet to release another statement alerting students on their future plans, leaving the university community uncertain. Students stay positive as they anticipate what the future holds.

While teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, Laura Wolf-Powers, PhD, published a book titled, “University City: History, Race, and Community in the Era of the Innovation District” in 2022, highlighting the history of development and gentrification in West Philadelphia. Her research focuses on neighborhood revitalization and urban/regional economic development, with particular attention to how structural inequalities influence community development. Wolf-Powers is currently a professor in the Department of Urban Policy and Planning at the City University of New York, Hunter College. 

The following interview from December 2024 with Wolf-Powers has been edited for clarity and length. 

Gerard Johnson: How does Drexel University’s approach to gentrification and expansion differ from The University of Pennsylvania’s? How does their expansion affect the public sphere, citizenship, inclusion and exclusion?

Laura Wolf-Powers: Neither Penn nor Drexel would view itself or proclaim itself to be an agent of gentrification. Each institution believes it’s pursuing two compatible aims. For example, Penn, with its West Philadelphia initiatives in the 2000s, focused on creating an environment around its campus where students felt comfortable. 

Similarly, Drexel is trying to create, in the areas around its official campus, a place where students feel part of a neighborhood, along with people who work at companies that are part of the innovation districts. Again, I don’t think Drexel would call that gentrification; they’d label it “campus-adjacent development” that extends the university’s brand into the neighborhood, creating environments where people can thrive.

There’s a lot of contention around the idea of gentrification — what it is, what it isn’t, and

whether it’s positive. Drexel is extending itself beyond its campus as both a catalyst for economic development and as an outreach to communities of lower socioeconomic status. For example, the Dornsife Center reflects Drexel’s commitment to serving communities near the university.

At the same time, I don’t think it’s inaccurate to call these initiatives a form of gentrification. It definitely marked the territory as “university-associated.”

When Penn started the West Philadelphia initiatives and created the University City District, they used the concept of “clean and safe.” The question I’d pose is: “Clean for whom and safe from whom?” Safety is framed as universal, but it can lead to stratifying the population into those who need to be kept out to maintain that safety, and those who remain in the “zone of safety.” Even if that wasn’t Penn’s explicit intention, it was the outcome of creating the University City District and expanding police or security presence up to 42nd Street.

GJ: Logan and Molotch call the city a “growth machine” due to the capital flowing through metropolitan areas. You reference them in your work — how does their theory connect to your research, and how do you think universities leverage that concept to exercise power in cities?

LW: I find them very influential. Their classic “growth coalition” involves government and major property owners, as well as the building trades unions. Even if Logan and Molotch don’t explicitly include universities in that mix, it’s implied that universities are part of it. 

The reasoning is that universities are place-based: Penn and Drexel are very invested in Philadelphia being economically prosperous, and as a result, they’re interested in boosting the value of the land near them.

Logan and Molotch make a distinction between people who embrace the “use value” of land and those who embrace the “exchange value” of land. People who live in homes, or who run businesses that are tied to a specific city, are in Philadelphia because they live there or operate there. Their relationship to the land is about using it. That’s very different from seeing land as an asset to be exchanged—something you want to appreciate in value so you can sell it. 

In neighborhoods like Powelton Village, Mantua or Belmont, many residents live there because it’s their neighborhood. They want to stay, and to them, the main value of their property is that it’s a place to live. But to property investors, the value lies in how much they can sell it for after a few years if it appreciates. Logan and Molotch highlight this tension between use value and exchange value. It’s central to gentrification because some actors treat real property in terms of exchange value, while others — whose families may have lived there for generations — think of it in terms of use value. Those interests don’t align.

GJ: Is gentrification rhizome-like (web-like, decentralized, yet interconnected)?

LW: I think there’s something to the idea that gentrification can spread outwards, but I’d also add that gentrification involves layers. One of them is narrative, because there’s this idea of a poor neighborhood being “dangerous” or “unsafe.” Then people say it’s changing, it’s being revitalized, there’s renewal happening. People start talking about the neighborhood differently, and that interacts with another layer, which involves actual property transactions: vacant lots getting developed by investors or higher-income people moving in. There’s a class dimension here, because what makes the neighborhood “better” is that people of higher social status move in. People are heavily influenced by their prejudices about who’s worthy, virtuous or who’s a “valuable” resident. In general, that’s all very racialized. That can erase the longtime residents who may not have money to invest but do invest their time or commitment to their neighbors. Because that commitment doesn’t have a dollar value, it tends to be overlooked in the discussion of renewal, revitalization or reinvestment.

GJ: How is the gentrification unfolding in University City different from mid-20th-century urban renewal? Is it just another form of top-down redevelopment?

LW: During urban renewal, it was very top-down. The ethos of that era was that certain areas were slums, with an “undesirable” population that needed to be removed. There was no engagement with local residents. There was also no acknowledgement that these so-called “slum” areas had substandard housing largely because of racism in the housing market and the government’s tolerance of discrimination and exploitation by real estate entities and landlords.

Today, universities approach urban revitalization differently, at least in some ways. There’s an effort to include people from the affected neighborhoods in the planning process. Civic associations are consulted, and there’s a collective attempt to envision what the future of the neighborhood should look like. That’s progress. However, there’s still a tendency to stigmatize people of color with lower incomes and to conflate “Black neighborhood” with “bad neighborhood.”

Some things have changed since those days, and the Dornsife Center is a good example. It’s meant to uplift community members, help them find jobs at the universities or in nearby companies, promote literacy, provide legal assistance and public health initiatives and aim for co-prosperity. The idea is that while the university does its thing, there will also be progress in the neighborhoods — people achieving social mobility and so on.

That’s a significant difference from urban renewal, when the residents of targeted neighborhoods were ignored, denigrated and not taken seriously. Still, there’s a prioritization of developers’ and real estate investors’ interests over the needs of long-time residents who simply want to stay where they are with decent public services and good schools. That doesn’t get counted as “development.”

GJ: How have you observed the physical consequences of displacement, and how did those experiences affect you personally? What was the affective or emotional dimension of witnessing — or writing about — events like “funerals for homes”?

LW: Many people I interviewed described the “Funeral for a Home” to me. People I spoke with in Mantua and Powelton felt it acknowledged their experience in a way few other interventions had. That’s why I decided to feature a community meal image on the book’s cover. 

One displacement I observed happened at the University City Townhomes on 40th and Market. Around the time my book was published, the residents of U.C. Townhomes were informed that their homes would be demolished to make way for a new development. The city offered them vouchers, but they didn’t believe they could relocate to neighborhoods with anything close to the amenities they had in University City — better schools, a nearby grocery store and public transportation. Essentially, they were being expelled from a well-connected neighborhood that supported their social mobility.

As land value rises, the owners of the land — where the U.C. Townhomes stood — discovered it was more lucrative to sell than to continue operating it as affordable housing. People’s lives were affected, but the imperative to profit ultimately prevailed. 

GJ: Now that John Fry has left Drexel University, how do you think gentrification in University City will evolve? How would you rate his legacy in terms of gentrification?

LW: The general playbook for university-led development started with the West Philadelphia initiatives at Penn — John Fry worked there, went to Franklin & Marshall, then came back to serve as president of Drexel. In many ways, he tried to import what he had done at Penn into the Drexel context and also improve on it. In some respects, he succeeded. I think Drexel’s interventions in the surrounding neighborhoods feel more authentic, more meaningful than a lot of what Penn has done. Drexel deserves a lot of credit for viewing its neighbors as partners — people who need to participate in the life of both the neighborhood and the university.

However, his shortcoming was not fully understanding that if you want to create stability and opportunity for people living around the university, you must keep land costs down. That might mean encouraging public acquisition of land or having nonprofits hold land so it stays out of the speculative market. 

As for successes and failures, I think Drexel launched a lot of impressive programs, such as the Dornsife Center, its partnership with the University City District, and the West Philadelphia Skills Initiative. But unless people’s land and housing costs remain manageable in one way or another, it will be difficult for them to live in these neighborhoods and enjoy the benefits of development, because housing and property taxes just keep going up.

GJ: Gentrification matters to many students in University City. How can we change the conversation, and what would you say to the Drexel student body about it?

LW: There’s an assumption that in every case, the market should lead neighborhood reinvestment. That has consequences — one being that land is viewed as an asset rather than a collective resource. I believe Philadelphia should be more ambitious in creating opportunities for land to be held collectively — non-commodified. If that happened, the development universities pursue would benefit everyone instead of providing most of the benefits to a few.

Students do benefit from what the university is doing. Drexel’s reputation and economic footprint are growing. But if students think of themselves as members of the local community — not just as Drexel students — they might see real property as more of a collective resource and less of a commodity. 

What I’d say to you and others concerned about gentrification is to keep elevating your perspective and exposing fellow students to it. That’s extremely valuable. The more you can broaden people’s horizons to recognize that the university’s actions do affect local residents, the better.