Divinity School shows it's not made of straw

Yale huffs and puffs but the Div school still stands. Has the wolf changed its ways? By Jen Richler

Blow the house down

To some, Yale's actions over the past couple of years suggest that the University isn't feeling any moral qualms. "If they could build a compost heap that would bring in money, they'd do it," Tim Hickman, ARC '00, said.

Vincent Scully, JE '40, GRD '49, Sterling Professor Emeritus in the History of Art, agreed that there aren't any limits to Yale's willingness to renovate. "Yale, like most institutions, is trying to keep its options open," he said.

Those who chastise the University for being insensitive to the importance of architectural preservation see examples of disrespect for buildings on every corner. The most prominent case of late was Yale's decision to demolish Maple Cottage, built by Alexander Jackson Davis in 1836, at 85 Trumbull St. Despite protests by preservationists like the Friends of Hillhouse that the building had important historical value, the University tore it down this summer and has plans to design landscaped gardens in its place. According to Lawrence Haas, director of public affairs, academic buildings may eventually be designed for the site. But as of now, no plans have been announced.

Closer to home, many people are critical of architectural changes being made on Yale's campus, such as the changes to Berkeley College. "I think there's a feeling among some people that with the Berkeley renovations, some of the character of the original building has been lost," Justin Beal, CC '01, an architecture major, said. "It's become more standardized."

Scully is also critical of some of the changes to Berkeley, such as the "crude balcony" that was added to the dining hall and the decision to close off the center doors that lead from the common room into the dining hall. Having only the doors at the end of the common room open into the dining hall, he said, turns the common room into a corridor that students pass through rather than a center in which to congregate, as it was originally designed. Beal added that the same "sterile feeling" pervades the Swing Space and the recently renovated Linsley-Chittenden Hall.

Scully does, however, recognize that buildings change with changing times. "Buildings have to be added to and changed over time. But with a really good building, you should give it a break and instead adjust yourself, adjust your environment," he said. And, Scully believes, the University has not been this accommodating. "They're behaving very badly and very stupidly," he said. "They don't have to behave this way."

The wolf ain't so bad

But the Administration will tell you quite a different story about the University's attitude toward preservation. "We feel that our record on preservation, particularly in the past few years, has been as good as any entity in the state, and possibly in the country," Haas said. According to Haas, the University has spent over $650 million on preservation over the past five years, and it plans to spend another billion over the next 10.

For every example of Yale's insensitivity to the historic and aesthetic value of Yale's buildings given by preservationists, Haas can provide an example of the opposite. He mentioned the renovations to the Law School as an instance where Yale was able to improve upon the existing building, refinishing its woodwork and modernizing its storage system without disrupting the original design. Furthermore, despite the concerns some expressed before the changes to Berkeley were made, Haas claimed that the feedback on the renovated building has been "uniformly positive."

As for the demolition of Maple Cottage, Yale, according to Haas, is confident that it made the right decision. He claimed that both experts and "most reasonable people" agreed that the building had "absolutely no historic value. It was becoming an eyesore and a place of criminal activity." He added that only a small minority was fighting to preserve Maple Cottage. "We have no second thoughts about the decision to tear down 85 Trumbull Street," Haas said, referring to the building only by its address and not its better-known name.

But there was one decision that the University clearly did have second thoughts about—the decision to demolish four rear buildings at the Divinity School. In a press release dated Tues., Sept. 14, Yale announced that it will no longer demolish the buildings. Instead, three of the four buildings will be "mothballed" for potential future use, and the fourth will house the school's library.

Other changes included in the $38-million plan to restore the Divinity School include moving its center of gravity to the Sterling Divinity Quadrangle, where the Jeffersonian pavilions, which originally served as dorms, will house seminars, classrooms and offices. Right now, classrooms and faculty offices are scattered across the site, "making a sense of community difficult to engender," the press release stated. "The plan is designed to remedy those shortcomings while preserving the marvelous historical legacy and the Georgian Revival architecture that the Quadrangle and its component parts represent."

According to University President Richard Levin, GRD '74, "This exciting plan will do far more than give the Divinity School the improved space that it needs for its academic program. It will nourish a great sense of community."

The University's seeming attention to the importance of community and the decision not to demolish the rear buildings could suggest an increased sensitivity that preservationists would applaud. On the other hand, there may be more practical factors at play. "The preservation of these buildings is designed to avoid the continued controversy and further litigation that demolition might have engendered, enabling the School to address more quickly its pressing academic needs," the press release stated.

Haas put it more bluntly: "All things being equal, it would have been better not to have empty buildings in the back. It's not an optimal situation," he said. By deciding not to demolish the buildings, the University is attempting "to clear away a very explosive issue," he said, clearly alluding to Scully's threats to resign should the School decide to tear down the buildings.

Still standing

But others in the preservation and architecture community are encouraged by Yale's change of heart and see it as a sign that the University is becoming more sensitive to the importance of striking a balance between modernization and preservation. According to Robert Stern, dean of the School of Architecture, tearing down the rear buildings of the Divinity School would have been "like tearing off your left and right arms." That the University changed its mind, he said, indicates that they didn't want to interfere with the buildings' "brilliant composition."

This kinder, gentler attitude bodes well for the challenges Yale faces in future restoration projects, namely the renovations to the residential colleges, Stern said. The challenge in making changes to the colleges, he said, is to respond to the different and more rigorous needs of today's undergraduates without changing the essential character of the college. The renovations to Berkeley, he said, were successful on the whole, "although they could have been slightly more attuned to preservation issues." According to Stern, those planning the design for the renovated Branford College have been more aware of these issues. In fact, he said, certain changes that were proposed were revised to make the design more consistent with the character of the college. This is particularly important with Branford, he said, which is distinct for its beautiful landscape design.

Stern feels that Yale has shown it can lead the way in historical preservation—as well it should. "Yale should be a model for preservation and innovation in architecture. It should show how it can both respect its past and how new buildings can also be excellent." Though some may worry that Yale will repeatedly ignore the historic and aesthetic value of buildings on and off campus, Stern remains optimistic: "I believe the Administration is banded together to move forward, so that the next generation doesn't look back and say, `What the hell were they thinking?'"

Graphic by Shawn Cheng.

Back to A&E...