Groups Oppose Plan to Remove New Haven Cemetery Walls
By Lindsey Roberts | Online Only | Oct. 2, 2009
Grove Street Cemetery in New Haven, Conn., is a National Historic Landmark.
Credit: Alek Juskevice, The New Haven Preservation Trust
Next Tuesday, a committee in New Haven, Conn., will debate a proposal to open up sections of the 164-year-old Grove Street Cemetery's walls to the light and passerby.
Last summer, to the dismay of some preservationists, Charles Ellis, 1959 Yale University alumnus and one of the 11 elected stewards of the cemetery, put forth the proposal. Ellis is married to Linda Lorimer Ellis, Yale's vice president and secretary, and Yale is planning to build two new residential colleges next to the cemetery. Yale University officials say they aren't involved.
"It's not a university project. We're agnostic on the matter," says Michael Morand, a Yale spokesman. (Neither Ellis nor Harold Welch, the president of the cemetery committee, could be reached for comment.)
Local preservationists argue that removing sections of the wall would destroy its structural integrity and peaceful setting. "The noise from the traffic going down Prospect [Street] is unbelievable when the street is open," says William Cameron, a superintendent of the cemetery with his wife, Joan, for 35 years.
Sculptor Hezekiah Augur built the 1845 walls, while architect Henry Austin built the Egyptian Revival stone entrance in 1848, inscribing, "The Dead Shall Be Raised." Grove Street opened its grounds to everyone: deceased townies, Yalies, blacks, indigents and local churchgoers. It currently entombs eminent Americans such as cotton gin inventor Eli Whitney and statesman Roger Sherman. In 1997 Grove Street was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and in 2001 it was declared a National Historic Landmark, one of only about 2,500 such sites in the country.
The New Haven Preservation Trust, the New Haven Urban Design League, and the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation have joined in opposition of Ellis' plan, although they have no say in the final decision because the cemetery is not part of an historic district. They are eager to hear what comes of the private meeting, although a vote will not be taken. "The case hasn't really been made clear that it's an impediment or that it's an imposing structure in the area," says Pedro Soto, president of the New Haven Trust.
A Yale committee that studied the university's plans to build two new residential colleges, currently slated to open 2013, suggested that part of the wall be replaced by a wrought-iron fence and another by a second gate. "The impermeable walls of the Grove Street Cemetery pose significant aesthetic and psychological barriers," reads the report, dated February 2008.
Vincent Scully, celebrated history of art professor at Yale for more than 50 years, also believes the wall is a cold shoulder to pedestrians. "Yale is cut right through the liver by that cemetery," Scully told the Yale Daily News in April. "It would make a great difference if the cemetery were more welcoming."
Yale To Raze 12 Buildings for Student Housing
For more photos, stories, and tips, subscribe to the print edition of Preservation magazine.
Subscribe to the Today's News RSS feed
Comments
Submitted by Brian at: October 9, 2009
Hi Corposant, I just wanted you to know that I am not in favor of destroying the wall. I just expected that a residential developer would try to hide the graveyard rather than promote open views of it. I'm sure there are interesting historical tombs in there.
Submitted by chizler at: October 6, 2009
There will be a price to be paid if the college opens the walls, even if there is to be a gate, it is bound to attract people to cut through the cemetery and maybe even do damage to the stones. The fewer the gates the less the vandilism.
Submitted by corposant at: October 6, 2009
Frankly I find this proposal to be an utter disregard to history and the way this cemetery was has been for well over 100 years. Not surprising that Yale pretends they have nothing to do with it. Let nothing stand in the way of progress--however, I would argue this to be a regression, not a progression. And this cemetery sounds rather intriguing, I for one would be quite pleased to live by it, or one like it. So there you go Brian.
Submitted by Knz at: October 6, 2009
I am a preservationist, and strongly concur with the opposition to destroy any thing historical. The wall, an eyesore to some, has a beauty that should not be replaced for any of the reasons stated here. To tear down anything, fence, building, etc. in the name of progress and cheat future generations of anything historical is WRONG!!!!!!
Submitted by Brian at: October 3, 2009
Interesting dillema. I can understand that a wall can be very forboding. However I'm not sure why you would want to live right next to a cemetary in the first place. An opening would present a direct view of the gravestones?