Yale hopes to raze 6.5 downtown acres to make room for the construction of two new residential colleges. The Historic District Commission is not pleased with the plan.
At Wednesday night’s meeting of the commission, Chairman Eric O’Brien (pictured) read aloud from a draft letter condemning Yale’s massive demolition plans. The letter is not yet the final word from the commission; that vote is yet to come. But it’s unlikely that Yale will come away with a thumbs up from the board.
The Historic District Commission does not have jurisdiction over Yale’s plans for the triangular site bounded by Prospect Street, Sachem Street and the Farmington Canal trail. Still, Yale University Planner Laura Cruickshank said after Wednesday’s meeting that she was disappointed by the commissioners’ disapproving comments.
Cruickshank signaled that the university is ready to go forward with its plans with or without the non-binding approval of the Historic District Commission.
Before hearing the draft letter from the commission, Cruickshank (pictured) read aloud from a statement of her own, extolling the virtues of Yale’s plan.
The new colleges are sorely needed, she said, and their construction will provide benefits to the university as well as the city. The new residential buildings will allow Yale to increase its undergraduate enrollment by 800, to 6,100 total undergrads. Since Yale’s voluntary payment to the city is tied to its enrollment numbers, city revenue will increase.
The new colleges will be based on the successful designs of existing colleges, and will be a continuation of the “collegiate Gothic style” of architecture, Cruickshank said.
“We regret that it requires the demolition of some existing buildings,” she said. But the benefit of the new construction is worth the sacrifice, she argued.
Yale’s desire to “scrape it clear” is a “big step and a surprising step,” said Anstress Farwell, head of the New Haven Urban Design League. Farwell spoke out against Yale’s demolition plans at Wednesday night’s meeting. She argued that the demolition would destroy several historical structures that should be preserved.
“There are ways to rethink this site,” she said. She presented a packet of information to the commissioners that outlined several alternative ways that Yale could use the site that would preserve some of the most important historic buildings. The packet included “quick studies” drawn up by architect Patrick Pinnell.
“We don’t object to the growth of Yale,” Farwell said. “But a city like ours has lost so much of historical benefit.”
Farwell also argued that demolition is ill-advised since Yale has not yet raised the funding to complete the construction it plans for the site.
Cruickshank later said that there were “a number of inaccuracies” in Farwell’s remarks to the commission.
Reading from the commissioners’ draft letter of response, Chair Eric O’Brien said that the board “cannot condone mass demolition.”
“The Historic District Commission will strongly oppose building demolitions,” he said. Citing standards from the Department of the Interior, O’Brien argued that Yale’s plans amount to “immeasurable loss” of historic buildings.
O’Brien mentioned specifically the historic value of the Daniel Cady Eaton House, built in 1865, and Hammond Hall, built in 1904. Both buildings are slated for demolition under Yale’s plan.
The final response letter will be ready by next month’s meeting of the Historic District Commission. Several members of the commission will be abstaining or recusing themselves from voting on the letter.
“We’re disappointed,” Cruickshank said as she walked away from the meeting with several other Yale staffers. “We truly think we’re doing something that has more benefit … We’re not tearing it down for a parking lot.”
Cruickshank acknowledged that the university is not legally required to find approval from the Historic District Commission. “We don’t need to come to them,” she said. But Yale would like to partner with the city, she explained.
Will Yale go forward anyway, if the final word from the commission is disapproval of the demolition plans?
“They can’t stop the project,” Cruickshank said. “We’ll have to wait and see. But the university is fully committed to doing this.”