Plans for new colleges solidified
A scattering of buildings just north of the Grove Street Cemetery now have signs posted to their doors that say, in bold capital letters, “This Building Proposed To Be Demolished.”
Those signs — and the accompanying ire of some local preservationists over the proposed demolitions — are just the latest indication that Yale is inching closer to adding two residential colleges. While the economy has slowed the project, and the question of when the two new colleges will open remains unanswered, it became much easier to imagine Yale’s 13th and 14th residential colleges this...
The alternative to creative destruction is urban stagnation because although architecture nerds love old buildings, no one wants to live or do business in them.
@ ROFLCOPTER: What is "creative destruction" supposed to be??? As history tells, there is no such thing! That is an oxymoron my friend and that is exactly the problem!
No such thing as "creative destruction"? That's just nonsense. Science teaches that creative destruction is how mankind advances.
There are only two questions here.
1. Will the new colleges be more socially useful than what they will replace? Yes, they will. They will allow for a much denser use of a site that is close to the center of campus and close to downtown. That use will also be much more central to Yale's mission than the uses it will replace. Mudd Library, for example, is a shelving facility; its contents could and should be moved to the West Campus.
2. Will the new colleges have greater aesthetic value than the structures they replace? Here one can only go on the preliminary designs; and Stern has apparently been saying that the design is becoming "quirkier" -- that is, more Gothically interesting -- as time goes by.
But even based on what we have seen so far, I would have to say that the new colleges are aesthetically much superior to what they will replace. They will present to the street a unified complex; they will provide vertical elements that will enliven the skyline; and they might even approach the joy of Yale's Collegiate Gothic legacy from the 1920s and 1930s.
So on these two criteria, the issue isn't even close.
The preservationists' case thus reduces to the assertion that historic fabric is valuable in its own right, or the view that a structurescape that has accreted over time is more valuable -- because more revealing of what led to the present -- than a large, new complex. These arguments might force in many contexts -- say, if a vibrant neighborhood block, or a single architectural marvel, were proposed to be razed. Neither, however, is the case here.
I agree. W the point about urban stagnation. The new colleges
must be built. It is an urgent project for the campus and city. even tho the univ should have been more thoughtful in it's approach. Designnewhaven.Org has a pretty balanced post about this.
Arguments to preserve fine but not particularly distinguished buildings like Hammond Hall and Seeley Mudd Library undercut the arguments for the preservation of truly important buildings. The so-called preservationists risk undercutting the cause of preservation of historic buildings by sounding like mere opponents of change - any change.
Here's the link to the Design New Haven article cited by #6 (the web site moved for some reason):
http://downtownnewhaven.blogspot.com/
To have Yale demolish these buildings show complete dis-reqard for the built envoronment and the cultural history of New Haven. They can surely use the buildings in the design of the colleges and make for a more interesting complex