|
|
|
The World According to Scully
Yale's architecture giant talks about the university — and the city — he calls home
Vincent J. Scully is Sterling Emeritus Professor of art history at Yale. A New Haven native, he has spent most of
his life here and has been on the Yale
faculty since 1947. He is considered one of the world's leading teachers of and authorities on both classical
and modern architecture.
|
Business New Haven
1/24/2000
By: BNH
|
You are a professor of the history of art, but you're best known for writing and speaking on architecture. For the layperson, where do art and architecture diverge?
They're the same. Architecture creates an environment for human beings to live in; sculpture puts images into action; and painting, through illusion, humans can make any environment or act that they wish. It's architecture, sculpture and painting. It's not architecture and art.
One imagines you have something of a love-hate relationship with Yale, since you've spent your career here, but have been at times highly critical of its policies regarding historic structures.
I love it, and that's why I'm critical of it. I've been critical of many of [Yale's] actions in terms of preservation, and their policies toward their own architecture and the architecture of New Haven. I think they've often taken a very irresponsible attitude toward being a good citizen, so I've been very critical of them. I was born in New Haven; my father was president of the Board of Aldermen in the 1930s. So I obviously care a great deal about this city as well.
You have written of Yale's policy toward historic structures as “demolition by neglect.” Where did that originate?
That was actually my wife's phrase [laughs]. Throughout its history, Yale has been very good at building things - but not so good at taking care of them. Take the example of the Davies house [on Prospect Street]. It was bequeathed to Yale in perfect shape, and Yale just let it rot. A lot of people wanted to do things with it - make it an inn, or a conference center - but Yale wouldn't commit to anything or let anybody use it for anything. But they didn't take care of it. Finally, there was a fire in it, apparently lit by homeless people. That got Yale a lot of anger from preservationists and ordinary citizens in New Haven. That was a great 19th-century house. Now Yale is rebuilding it.
To what extent is Yale bound by laws regarding historic preservation?
As you know, there's a provision in Connecticut conservation law that any citizen can sue an institution or individual who is destroying or degrading any building on the National Register [of Historic Places] or which is in a national historic district.
Including destroying by neglect?
Absolutely. This group, the Friends of Hillhouse Avenue, tried to sue Yale [to preserve] Maple Cottage. Yale is afraid of that provision [in state law]. Their lawyers are frenzied that somebody is going to sue. That was the whole thing with Maple Cottage: [Yale] wanted to get it down as soon as they could, once they decided that they didn't want it any more. Several times even this year Yale lawyers have been in Hartford arguing in the legislature to get that law changed [to exempt] universities and other non-profits. Which would be a terrible mistake. So I think Yale's policies with regard to preservation have been short-sighted. It's really touching, because the reason Yale is in New Haven is because New Haven put up more money than any other town in Connecticut to get it. And they did it because New Haven was an ideal Congregational community, and they wanted to have a school to train ministers. In that sense, Yale is really New Haven's creation. But since then Yale and New Haven have had a relationship which has never been close, and has often been tragic.
During the Maple Cottage saga, the head of Cambridge [Mass.] Preservation Trust wrote to the Friends of Hillhouse Ave. Comparing Cambridge and New Haven, he wrote that, 'Harvard would never dare to unilaterally take down a building,' and asked why New Haven didn't have an 'effective historic-preservation organization' to counterbalance Yale. Why isn't Preservation Trust more effective in combating, or at least counterbalancing, Yale?
Well, Harvard's record is not quite lily-white. But it's true that they would not ever now take down a building. I think Harvard has learned its lesson. About the New Haven Preservation Trust, the best thing one can say about it is that at times it's been strong - but mostly it hasn't. [In the Maple Cottage case], the Preservation Trust leadership sat down with Yale at a sort of 'witches banquet' and signed an agreement that Yale would save a couple of buildings which it intended to save anyway, but would be allowed to tear down others - including Maple Cottage. Preservation trusts have no right to do that. So they certainly didn't behave the way the Cambridge trust claims it would have. And the same is true of the Connecticut Preservation Trust: They didn't back [the Friends of Hillhouse Avenue]; they behaved with complete indifference to the whole thing. And also, the National Trust for Historic Preservation - of which I'm a trustee - in the end, their lawyers would not enter into the [law]suit against Yale.
Why?
I don't know; I suspect everybody knew that the New Haven Preservation Trust had betrayed its trust.
What was Yale trying to accomplish in this case?
Yale has a lot of plans for Hillhouse Avenue and Trumbull Street. They see that as the new entrance to the university. I'm not sure they're right, but they think most people come to the university now from [Exit 3 off I-91]. So they want to have a lot of the administration around there, especially things having to do with admissions, and they want to have a gate effect.
Is the divinity school saga finally concluded, and did the good guys win?
The good guys almost won. [Yale] agreed not to tear down the [quadrangle] buildings, and that was the big issue. It would have been insane to tear those down; it made no sense at all. However, as things stand now, the program of rebuilding is still on. Their idea was that the divinity school had gotten small, so the administration got the idea of getting rid of the [present divinity school campus] and putting them somewhere downtown. A lot of students and alumni protested, so finally the administration decided to 'downsize' it. Somebody told them they should tear down those buildings in the back that have most of the large spaces to save money on maintenance. None of it made sense. Now, presumably, the buildings in back are going to stay there, but be sort of mothballed until they find a use for them. I hope that wiser counsel will prevail.
Yale's vision for Broadway seems to be a lot of big, shiny chain stores paying high rents, and the heck with the mom-and-pops that have been there for decades.
I regret that. I regretted bringing Barnes & Noble in there. I think bringing in big chains is terrible. They clearly are trying to gentrify it. This connects with another probably disastrous thing, which is the mall. I've never seen a mall that doesn't destroy its nearest Main Street. The place where that doesn't happen is where Main Street is more upscale than the mall - Greenwich is a good example. But if you say, as the mayor does, that downtown is going to be boutiques and the mall will be upscale shopping - well, this is a tough old industrial town. It's not Hanover [N.H.], it's not Princeton - it's not a little college town at all. The gentrification of Broadway is part of that whole thing. BNH
|
Go FirstGo PreviousGo
NextGo LastGo
to Index
|
|
