Eyesores? Or Brave New Buildings?

A very thoughtful piece.

Duo, understandably, focuses on the design of the colleges rather than their social impact. I'm a social scientist by training and usually have enough sense to avoid making predictions. But the colleges will contribute to the gentrification of the surrounding areas. When the colleges open, Yale will ensure that there is a very visible police presence there. This is both understandable from a public relations perspective and the right thing to do. But one of the effects of doing so is that middle-class folks will begin viewing the area as a plausible alternative to East Rock and other predominantly middle class neighborhoods. It's a short walk from Yale, many of the buildings are architecturally interesting, and real estate prices are (for now) much less.

Gentrification is a mixed blessing. The crime rate for the neighborhood will probably decrease, at least in terms of violent crimes. Homeowners will see their property values go up. But gentrification is disruptive, particularly for low-income tenants who may be displaced. I think it would be wise for Yale to work with the community to minimize the costs of the gentrification it is indirectly causing , while maintaining its benefits.

The state and city, not Yale, are responsible for mitigating the impacts of gentrification by doing things like investing in improved transportation services to lower-cost, farther-out parts of the region and by making it much easier for private developers to build enough new housing supply to meet demand. It is true that anytime that you add a few hundred jobs to an area, you will get some gentrification. However, I am not sure why adding 200 (?) new jobs at the colleges would have a larger impact than the thousands of jobs that are being added in the city more broadly. The best thing that Yale could do to reduce gentrification would be to help finance a few thousand more high-rise apartment units downtown for its graduate students and young, single faculty and staff.

Gentrification is a mixed blessing. The crime rate for the neighborhood will probably decrease, at least in terms of violent crimes. Homeowners will see their property values go up. But gentrification is disruptive, particularly for low-income tenants who may be displaced. I think it would be wise for Yale to work with the community to minimize the costs of the gentrification it is indirectly causing , while maintaining its benefits.

Gentrification is the kIss of death for the poor and working class .You say Homeowners will see their property values go up. I know plenty of property owners that hate the gentrification even though their property values have risen.In fact most are elderly couples who have put in years on there blocks and they are disgusted by what has happened in the community.They hate the cafés , clubs, and bougie new neighbors..I will say it again. Gentrification starts in stages. New haven is in the First stage .I give it five more years and you will see the full effect of Gentrification.Just got this book today.If you think most of you will be around you better.Keep your bags pack.This will be you.

In Conversation: Gentrification and Globalization

https://youtu.be/yjEI4I2_q7E

Anonymous, I said that it would be wise for Yale to address the indirect effects of the colleges, not that it should take on the responsibilities of improving the transportation system and updating the zoning ordinance. Those are, in fact, the responsibilities of the state and the city, respectively. But, over 20 years ago, Yale realized that healthy relations with the city and its residents were critical to the university's long-term future. While the new colleges will be a genuine asset to the city, their construction will indirectly harm a substantial number of city residents by increasing housing demand in a fully built-out area. Financing market rate housing for young professionals would do little to alleviate this impact. While Yale is under no legal obligation to mitigate this harm, doing so is in its own interest.

If you took 3,000 staff, students and faculty out of the marketplace they wouldn't be able to bid up apartment prices throughout New Haven. Sure they might just get replaced by 3,000 more working people from the suburbs, but wouldn't it be more affordable if you only had 3,000 people looking for new apartments rather than 6,000?

BRADLEY,

Why would a social scientist continue to use a scientifically debunked term like "gentrification"? Re : Vigdor study.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html

posted by: robn on November 19, 2015 6:49am

BRADLEY,

Why would a social scientist continue to use a scientifically debunked term like "gentrification"? Re : Vigdor study.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html



Gentrification May Be Complicated, But It's Not a Myth and Neither Is Displacement

In a recent Slate article, John Buntin, a correspondent for Governing magazine, argues that gentrification is a myth, a claim that we've certrainly heard before. And much like his predecessors, Mr. Buntin bases this claim on two premises: that displacement is a fiction and that gentrification, or what we erroneously call gentrification, is not only incredibly rare, but a good thing for poor minorities living in bad neighborhoods. It's a contrary position, and like many contrary positions, it claims to add nuance when in fact it elides it.And perhaps most importantly, Mr. Buntin's argument is simply wrong. Despite a brief disclaimer that gentrification, though rare in most cities, really does happen in some New York neighborhoods—which would seem to disprove his own premise.

http://observer.com/2015/01/gentrification-may-be-complicated-but-its-not-a-myth-and-neither-is-displacement/


Critiquing "The Myth of Gentrification" by John Buntin

Buntin's approach however, would seem to fall short of a comprehensive conception of gentrification, because for many New Yorkers the numbers he presents explain the reality that Williamsburg, Bed-Stuy, Harlem, and Fort Greene look nothing today like they once did.

http://urbanlawjournal.com/critiquing-the-myth-of-gentrification-by-john-buntin/


Like I said New haven is in the first stage of Gentrification.Trust me the Gentrification. vampires are picking up there game.

My bad. I forgot.Went to a friends house in West Haven.The people near him had signs in there house windows.The signs said stop eminent domain.

Robn, while a theory or study can be debunked, a term such "gentrification" can't. The article you cite notes that gentrification "of this sort" I.e., well-to-do white folks displacing lower income people of color, is quite rare. This is true, but there are other forms of gentrification.

As The Observer article notes, gentrification is rare in most cities. Most census tracts (neighborhoods) that were low/moderate income and majority minority in 2000 retained these characteristics in 2010. Sadly, the geographic concentration of poverty increased during this period, a trend that has likely continued. But some cities, most notably New York and San Francisco, have seen widespread gentrification, as 3/5ths has occasionally noted.

New Haven has clearly seen gentrification in a few areas. On and near Mansfield Street, non-poor whites have replaced lower income African-Americans. In other areas, notably downtown, the total number of housing units have increased substantially. There has been relatively little displacement in these areas, since there were not all that many residents to begin with. But the newcomers are better off and more likely to be white than the longer-term residents. This type of gentrification is continuing in Dwight and Dixwell.

I think the gentrification that New Haven has seen to date has been a good thing on balance. But it has imposed costs on low-income tenants in the affected areas.

3/5,

The Slate Article cites 2 scientific studies (one of which spanned almost 25 years) debunking the idea that improving neighborhoods cause displacement (so called gentrification).

Your Observer article is filled with anecdotes. Your other link is dead.

BRADLEY,

Common useage of the term "gentrification" is poor people being displaced by property improvement. A 25 year scientific study certainly can debunk an incorrect term.

Cycles of divestment and gentrification are intentional, deliberate schemes formulated to generate the most capital possible for banks, developers, and private investors. This is how city halls and their real estate accomplices view neighborhoods – not as places to live, but as places to profit. The wealthy, the elite, They want to capitalize on what once was struggling, but is now up-and-coming. They peruse the allure of the creative class without contributing to it. They prospect the cheap land of the working class to flip for maximum profit return. They see the grit and soul of communities and they strive to impose an economic supremacy upon it.

Hart Noecker

Like I said New haven is in the first stage of Gentrification so you may not see much.Give it about two years more and you will start to see the displacement..In fact look at the people from church street south who are still in motels.


Robin would you not call this displacement.

A Manhattan Landlord Is Evicting an Entire Block of Latino Business Owners

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/a-manhattan-landlord-is-evicting-an-entire-block-of-latino-business-owners-7268863

What fascinates me about Stern's design is how he responded to the unique triangular site. Unlike, Roger's residential colleges, which are all variations of orthogonal courtyard schemes, these new colleges introduce a new triangular courtyard typology that responds to the irregular site. While Roger's signature elements of towers, courtyards, even the Library Walk, etc. have been largely recreated in concept and Collegiate Gothic style - those familiar spaces have contorted, offset, and brilliantly molded into its peculiar site.

For me, Stern's design adds a new level of depth to Roger's Collegiate Gothic architecture on the Yale Campus - perhaps not in the way of design language, but certainly in the way of spatial variety.

Saarinen's Morse and Stiles Colleges similarly added new elements to Yale's residential college system by dealing with an equally odd site on Tower Parkway. Rather than following the established suite organization of Roger's residential college's, however, Saarinen opted to introduce a new typology at the request of students and contemporary trends. Saarinen also opted to harken back to the foundation of gothic design - medieval construction in San Gimignano - rather than respond to Roger's style. I think the site plan is excellent, though some have argued that the courtyards are too large, but the units and lack of social fostering have given Saarinen's design its most solid critique.

I think Yale and Stern made the right decision regarding style - copy Rogers - and let the unique site provide the innovation and interest. Rather than experiment with both like Saarinen. Stern also had to modify Roger's suite layouts in order to comply with modern building codes and achieve an efficient floor plan, but the essence of the residential college suites is still apparent in Stern's plans.

Robn, well-designed research can, over time, disprove misconceptions. But it rare that a single study, even if well-designed, does this. Replication is a key concept of social science as well as the natural sciences.

Displacement can be direct or indirect. Direct displacement is obvious, e.g., a developer tears down an apartment building that was occupied by low and moderate income people and replaces it with luxury condos. Indirect displacement caused by gentrification is harder to measure, since it is taking place in the context of larger dynamics in the housing market. (An example of such dynamics is the increase in demand for rental housing caused by the decrease in homeownership by 20 and 30-somethings), but this does not make the displacement any less real. And gentrification can take place without displacement. When 360 State was built it not directly displace anyone. It had little if any discernible effects on other housing, in part because there was very little housing in the immediate area. But it did change the demographics of downtown, bringing in lots of well-off, predominantly white residents.

I have one question or comment about this project Yale purchasing Wall St and High St became a huge point of contention but Yale completely removes Prospect Pl and part of Mansfield St and not a word?

@Duo, Have read and listened to much of your work, and am doing so with increased focus these days as my appreciation grows for the conversation you are leading about our built environment.

As an appreciative (and careful) listener, I would offer a detection of a certain bias in your narrative that you may or may not wish to check. You are clearly fond of our fair city, as am I, however your passion seems to get the better of you in a very specific way. It seems to manifest itself when the farther physically from our city an architect practices, the farther from complimentary you seem to become of their output here.

I recall a recent crit of Winstanley's effort with Elkus Manfredi's in the NHR, where you referred to the building as "odd":
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20150705/duo-dickinson-when-branding-becomes-blanding-in-new-haven.

Also, while you are clearly not impressed with Centerplan's effort with Svigals in the 'lick-and-stick-piece, you nonetheless go to great length to compliment the local architect Mr. Svigals calling him "gifted" and shift blame in part to the inheirant boxy-shape of the building's program:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/define_lick_stick/

Now again in the piece above you at once nod towards the negative in Yale's effort with a British architect in Sir Norman Foster (4'10") at the School of Management while ascribing undeserved credit to a local architect in Centerbrook for the Yale School of Forestry Building (1'-10") on which they acted only in the capacity of associate architect for another British firm in Hopkins.

The intelligence of your thesis is undeniable. You continue to have my compliments and attention. To add an equal measure of longevity alongside that intelligence, a suspension from, or at least a resistance to, judging work through a proto-parochial lens may aid you.

Unfortunately PB or staff edited out my previous comment a week ago because I labeled at least 2 architects (negatively).

I have "issues" with several Yale buildings and I voiced them as well. I am underwhelmed by the School of A. as well as with their building, too, on a major NH intersection. I mentioned the artist Escher which PB might have found too negative.

I am lucky my bike got stolen this summer so I no longer have to ride near the massive construction site pictured above which is on the public bike trail the city never finished.

But as Director of the Bernie Madoff $chool of Money, I feel I have to comment on SOM on Whitney, a glass box behind bars just like my mentor, BM, who appreciates being remembered in any capacity. Norm Foster, designer of the Shard and the Gherkin in London, has inspired our $chool to offer a course, Your Ego As Architecture. Thank you Norman.