1- A slide from Major DeStefano's 2008 presentation on Future Framework for New Haven
2- Rendering of the winning bid for the Coliseum site
3- Two areal images comparing the Oak Street Area before and after the construction of the Oak Street Connector
4- Photograph of the vibrant Oak Street Flea Market before demolition.
New Haven of the 1950s and 1960s was an urban planner's heaven with more funds per capita channeled into major urban redevelopment projects by federal authorities than in any other city in the United States. The resulting Model City, however, was far from being a vibrant urban community and the city's inevitable decline was only accelerated through the attempts that inflicted deeper scars in the urban fabric through projects such as the Oak Street Redevelopment Project. Today, acknowledging the failures of the Oak Street Redevelopment Project, city officials attempt to initiate a second wave of planned urban development that will aim to reinforce the first signs of revival in the city after decades long decline. To this end, the demolition of the Coliseum, proposed replacement of the Oak Street Connector by a pedestrian friendly avenue and related large scale real estate projects to the Southeast of central New Haven such as the 360 Park Street and the "Tenth Square" in the Gateway area attempt to reunite fragmented neighborhoods and connect the city with the sea shore once again. Yet with such attempts come also the questions of attainability of grand urban ideas through large scale urban development approaches and the extent to which these new projects draw upon a critical analysis of New Haven's experience in the 1950s and 1960s. An examination of the rhetoric used for advancing the second wave of development projects based on an assessment of the reasons for past failures, suggests that the fate of the new projects may be better than that of the Oak Street Development Project. This, of course, holds only if the outcome of the proposed projects succeeds in realizing the ideas recognized in their promotion, and more time is necessary to assess the real impact of these projects.
I think New Haven is always a great case study in city development - and redevelopment. I'm not positive what you plan on arguing in the paper, but I think it might be interesting to take unique points of view on both the historical aspects of New Haven's development (including projects like the Oak Street connector), as well as on the new developments that are taking place today. You say that more time is necessary that assess the real impact of these new projects, which certainly is a fair statement, but I would still use the existing evidence to form an argument on where you think these will go and what effect they will have. The study would be lacking without that argument as well I think. Looks great!
ReplyDeleteThe intro is jam packed with specifics, but I feel like the general ideas are not elucidated enough. Maybe you should zoom out for your first paragraph- what were the general changes, what were the problems, and how is the city tackling those now? Specific project names and details can come later in the paper. You should be able to do really great on the ground research for this!
ReplyDeleteLike the above comment says, this introduction is crammed with very specific facts and ideas about your paper. At the same time, you address very broad and philosophical ideas (i.e. "the questions of attainability of grand urban ideas through large scale urban development approaches"). It feels to me that these two aspects of this intro are too diametrically opposed in the paragraph. Maybe try combining them in such a way that we understand the broad ideas at first more than the specifics.
ReplyDeleteWell i guess this is what happens if you try to merge down three paragraphs into one... Thanks for the advice though. I will certainly reduce the density...
ReplyDeleteVolkan