From Ashes Of Disaster, A Challenge Arises

Church Street South may have disappeared, but the debate continues over what New Haven should learn from the housing development’s demise.

Thank Jonathan Hopkins for that.

The New Haven-bred architect and new urbanism advocate revived the complex’s complex history in an exhibition at Yale’s architecture school, at the corner of York and Chapel streets.

Thank Jonathan Hopkins for that.

The New Haven-bred architect and new urbanism advocate revived the complex’s complex history in an exhibition at Yale’s architecture school, at the corner of York and Chapel streets. He displayed documents, photos, and audio that tracked the original vision of the once cooperatively-owned development across from Union Station, through its deterioration and public health catastrophe in the hands of federally subsidized owners, until its demolition this year and emergency relocation of close to 300 families.

Hopkins’ exhibit posed questions about how to plan with community, rather than for community, questions that remain relevant as New Haven proceeds with efforts to rebuild a bigger new development on the property. And as it continues to see a once-in-a-generation remaking of the citywide landscape.

You can see some of Hopkins’ work about Church Street South in this in-depth illustrated piece he wrote for the Independent as the complex’s fate hung in the balance.

The exhibition closes on Thursday. I caught it during the Independent’s publishing break; some thoughts I shared on Facebook sparked a diverse online conversation about the issues Hopkins raised. Some of those commenting have been observing or participating in the shaping of urban policy for decades. I’ve reproduced highlights from that Facebook conversation below, including responses from Hopkins; please feel encouraged to post any reactions/thoughts in the comments section below.

Planning From Above/Below

Paul Bass
December 26, 2018 at 1:29 PM

Jonathan Hopkins has a brilliant, and intellectually challenging, exhibit up at Yale’s architecture school about the history and future of Church Street South. I learned so much from it about our city and about the development. It has wonderful photos, video, audio of Mayors Lee and Harp and of Babz Rawls-Ivy (uncredited from WNHH radio). It leaves me undecided about whether the smartest path out of New Haven’s mistakes lies in a Libertarian approach to planning and zoning, or in a continual quest for smarter grassroots and democratic planning that finally learns from past mistakes without repeating them or creating new ones (if that’s possible; perhaps an imperfect approach but better than the alternatives, like democracy itself?). The exhibit also seems to argue that CCS, like the Coliseum, failed to achieve its potential in part because its original design and intentions were not fully carried out. Finally, I’m still stuck on a question that bedevils me in preservation debates: when (and why and how) does butt-ugly modernism became ​“historical” treasure supposedly requiring preservation? The two takeaways I’m sure of: Jonathan is a local treasure. And Church Street South is another story of good intentions and top-down planning that went tragically awry, fed the greedy at the expense of the poor and working class, with lessons we must continue examining in tackling the challenges of the 21st century.

Patricia Kane
Grassroots planning is always valuable
Residents know how things work or don’t
Why ignore their input?

Sandy Perry Seqouya Johnston
New Haven (and other cities) have inspired a couple of thoughts for me on these topics. First, that democratic planning, if (as you rightly question, it’s possible at all), needs to focus on democratic *outcomes* rather than democratic process (not to exclude process, certainly, but the outcomes are the important thing). We have yet to invent a planning process that cannot be twisted by either the participants (usually an unrepresentative minority) or those running the process (bureaucrats or elected officials; it can be either) to show ​“popular support” for something they like. I actually think democratic, equitable outcomes — affordability, opportunity, safety, jobs — are easier to identify than a truly democratic process.

Second, perhaps we don’t need to make a choice between libertarian and top-down planning…perhaps we can empower small decisions by all kinds of people while moving away from the megaprojects that characterize both government-led urban renewal and private-sector redevelopment in a lot of places. Small lots, not big ones. I don’t know what that looks like, exactly, but imagine breaking up the Coliseum plot into many smaller ones instead of battling for years with one master developer. Paul Bass I wonder if the absence of planning and large-scale development is the best route to democratic outcomes, driven by organic individual investment and location decisions. Or if the unequal distribution of wealth tilts development inevitably to the agenda of the wealthy/concentrated capital, absent regulation intended to protect public health, safety and opportunity .

Dan Freidus

Absence of planning means developers are the only ones directly involved in this so-called democracy. I think your concern about consequences of unequal distribution of wealth is spot on.

Bill Morico
Thanks to Duo Dickenson’s 12/21 article in the Register, I saw the exhibit at Yale today. It brought back many good (and some bad) memories of friends who lived there when it was new. I am worried that the ​“new” development by the failed Northland Corp will be worse than the old project. I am also wondering if it will be the same ​“podium” construction as most of the new apartments in the city. They are all wood on the upper floors, and will be ready for demolition in 20 years, if they last that long. Also at the Architecture exhibit are many other projects around the world. Most interesting to me are the many photos or plans for projects in other countries, that use masonry construction for most of residential projects. The Oaxaca earth block construction method is particularly interesting, using green materials, and fireproof to boot. If we continue to let for-profit developers call the shots on new construction in the City, within 20 years the housing crisis will be worse than at present, and will affect renters at all income levels.

Helen Ward
I identify with your question about whether ​“butt-ugly” buildings should end up being preserved as historical treasures. If it were up to me I’d tear down all the ​“brutalist” buildings in New Haven that are, well, brutal. I suppose that makes me a Phillistine.

Margaret Olin
I will put myself on record as having wept over the destruction of some classic brutalist buildings. Not ​“butt ugly” ones of course.

Dee Marshall
Wooster Square and the people had to move out for Mayor Lee’s Urban Renewal and the highway that sent people to East Haven! A once thriving ethnic community! 

Jonathan Hopkins
I continue to struggle with finding satisfactory answers for many of the questions you’ve asked. I will try to weigh in on Charles Moore’s design and on top-down versus bottom-up planning and development.
First, in some ways the design of the buildings was a victim of value engineering. In other ways, Moore cleverly alluded to New Haven’s colonial era architecture.
In the mid-1980s, Trade Union Plaza, another cooperative turned project-based Section 8 complex, was given individual lockable garage doors, beautiful landscaping, and privacy fencing around communal open spaces.
I wish similar improvements had been made to Church Street South’s open air garages, and green spaces.
On a similar note, Florence Virtue Cooperative was originally built with flat roofs and exposed concrete block (see here: http://newhavenmodern.org/…/6ywx4vq04d_GoffeSt_185…). Today, Florence Virtue sports pitched roofs and stucco siding. I wonder if similar improvements to Church Street South may have made it more aesthetically pleasing and less susceptible to deterioration.
Lastly, I wonder if the Trowbridge Square neighborhood might shed some light on the top-down versus bottom-up planning and development issue. Trowbridge Square was a planned residential subdivision initially developed by individual property owners and small groups of homebuilders, and incrementally built-out into a mixed-use neighborhood by subsequent residents through alterations to the building stock to address changing household needs and market conditions.
Perhaps the lesson from Trowbridge Square is that cities are best designed, built, and managed by their residents working within a framework or plan developed with the help of experts.

Carla Weil
I am out if state until Jan. 8th so will miss the exhibit. Is there any way to see it after the 3rd?
I’m fascinated by Church St. South. I had a small role in its history providing financing during TCB’s [The Community Builders’] ownership. At the time the tension was that the housing quality was okay but not optimal however Church St. was one of few resources for 4 and 5 bedroom units in the City. TCB’s plan was to purchase 2 and 3 family buildings in the Hill and sell to homeowners with one or 2 units with project based Section 8’s to relocate the Church Street residents. Not a solution that worked out obviously. I have many questions that I’m sure are addressed in the exhibit. I’d love to see it.
By the way a little New Haven tidbit I’ve always loved is the fact that Trade Union Plaza (referenced in a previous comment) sits on the site of Robert Moses’ birthplace. A fitting fate for the birthplace of the man responsible for the demolition of so much in NYC.

Jonathan Hopkins
The exhibit may go up at another location later in the Spring of 2019, though nothing has been confirmed yet. Also, that is a very interesting plan that the Community Builders were considering.

Jim Farnam
Speaking of brutalist, the only piece of Paul Rudolph’s city hall design actually built (other than the underground garage and tunnel) can be seen in the plaza in front of 200 Orange Street with its Stoney Creek granite slabs. We were spared our version of Boston City Hall by the intervention of John Sawyer in 1981 to rethink the plan. The previous plan by I.M. Pei would have demolished the now Federal Court House and buildings down to Chapel. So we have managed to escape some of the worst top down ideas of that era.
Listening to Babz’s story about the community that once existed at CSS and hearing the stories of Long time residents in 2016 public meetings, I see the decline of CSS as a tragedy of poor public planning and inaction that did not have to happen. After the failure of the original JayCees coop, We as a people placed a viable community In the hands of investors who were shown to have no interest in the community and let it gradually fall apart through neglect and bad management. Good community building and some investment could have sustained the complex. By the time Northland bought it, it was beyond repair and too late for this probably, with all eyes set on demolition.

Previous coverage of Church Street South:
• Judge Weighs Class Action Argument
• Judge Spares Church Street South’s Shell Corporations
• Spin Doctor Hired To Rebut Asthma Link
• Northland: Disaster Not Our Fault
• Church Street South Taxes Cut 20%
• The Tear-Down Begins
• Finally Empty, Church Street South Ready To Disappear
• Northland’s Insurer Sues To Stop Paying
•Who Broke Church Street South?
•Amid Destruction, Last Tenant Holds On
• Survey: 48% Of Complex’s Kids Had Asthma
• Families Relocated After Ceiling Collapses
• Housing Disaster Spawns 4 Lawsuits
• 20 Last Families Urged To Move Out
• Church St. South Refugees Fight Back
• Church St. South Transfers 82 Section 8 Units
• Tenants Seek A Ticket Back Home
• City Teams With Northland To Rebuild
• Church Street South Tenants’ Tickets Have Arrived
• Church Street South Demolition Begins
• This Time, Harp Gets HUD Face Time
• Nightmare In 74B
• Surprise! Now HUD Flunks Church St. South
• Church St. South Tenants Get A Choice
• Home-For-Xmas? Not Happening
• Now It’s Christmas, Not Thanksgiving
• Pols Enlist In Church Street South Fight
• Raze? Preserve? Or Renew?
• Church Street South Has A Suitor
• Northland Faces Class-Action Lawsuit On Church Street South
• First Attempt To Help Tenants Shuts Down
• Few Details For Left-Behind Tenants
• HUD: Help’s Here. Details To Follow
• Mixed Signals For Church Street South Families
• Church St. South Families Displaced A 2nd Time — For Yale Family Weekend
• Church Street South Getting Cleared Out
• 200 Apartments Identified For Church Street South Families
• Northland Asks Housing Authority For Help
• Welcome Home
• Shoddy Repairs Raise Alarm — & Northland Offer
• Northland Gets Default Order — & A New Offer
• HUD, Pike Step In
• Northland Ordered To Fix Another 17 Roofs
• Church Street South Evacuees Crammed In Hotel
• Church Street South Endgame: Raze, Rebuild
• Harp Blasts Northland, HUD
• Flooding Plagues Once-Condemned Apartment
• Church Street South Hit With 30 New Orders
• Complaints Mount Against Church Street South
• City Cracks Down On Church Street South, Again
• Complex Flunks Fed Inspection, Rakes In Fed $$
• Welcome Home — To Frozen Pipes
• City Spotted Deadly Dangers; Feds Gave OK
• No One Called 911 | ​“Hero” Didn’t Hesitate
• ​“New” Church Street South Goes Nowhere Fast
• Church Street South Tenants Organize