Talk:New Haven, Connecticut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Second City?

Romanista writes: both new haven and hartford clame to be the second city of connecticut, which of the two is it?

which is the first city? Gzuckier 20:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, you made me look it up! I thought Stamford, then Hartford, but sure enough, recent population shows New Haven a whopping 300 people or so ahead of Hartford. :) The top few cities are pretty close in size...

--Jinjyaa 08:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pizza/Hamburger Debate

Pepe's Pizza, their history needs to be elaborated. It is a Connecticut institution. They might even need a separate page. User:Jatinshah 31 May 2005

The dining places mentioned are well-known to anyone who's spent time in New Haven. There's no reason to remove them. -- Nunh-huh 03:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of the thousands of articles Wikipedia has, according to a Google search of the archives, only two others have a similar list of restaurants (Berkeley, California and Great Barrington, Massachusetts), so there's no real precedent, and I tend to agree with RickK that there are too many to add to a general page like this. A link to List of restaraunts in New Haven seems like it would be a good compromise. Niteowlneils 04:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Rambot articles are meant to be added to, they are not meant to stay as compilations of statistics. When there get to be too many restaurants, they can be split off. You can hasten that process by adding some. -- Nunh-huh 04:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why did this become disambiguated? All US cities have a standard format of city, state. RickK | Talk 05:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RickK writes: "User:Nunh-huh insists on including three pizza places and a restaurant on the New Haven page. I've been trying to delete them but he won't let me. When I suggested that if he's going to list them he should add several others, he said that I needed to add them if I thought they should be included. Isn't it POV to list only a very few of the hundreds of stores in a city's list? Isn't this free advertising?"

  • Do you propose that no commercial establishment be mentioned in Wikipedia unless on an exhaustive list? I suspect you oppose the addition of these because you are under the misapprehension that "pizza places" have no particular significance to New Haven. see here. It's quite frustrating to have valid additions to this article repeatedly removed. -- Nunh-huh 06:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • As for selections being POV, and for commercial institutions being verboten, see List of restaurant chains, List of department stores, etc. There are even entire articles written about individual stores, I don't know where you get the idea that Wikipedia bans mention of commercial enterprises. If an institution is important in or unique to a city it should be mentioned in its city's article. -- Nunh-huh 07:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm unreverting yet again. These are important local institutions, and readily verifiable. Mr. Wales notes [1] that it is "valid to mention some restaurants or establishments of any type in an article, if they are actually of some cultural importance in that city", suggests verifiability as a measure of that cultural importance, and himself provides a URL relating to Louis' Lunch.

As I've already provided links for the pizza joints, the reversions should stop. I can't see why they started in the first place. -- Nunh-huh 16:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please work out your differences on the discussion page, using a poll if necessary. In the meantime, I have protected the page.—Eloquence 16:26, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

  • I believe we just have worked out our differences on the discussion page, albeit with a detour to the mailing list. -- Nunh-huh 16:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I did my latest reversion before I saw Jimbo's post on the mailing list. I will no longer revert this page. — Timwi 16:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FWIW: claims of Louis' Lunch inventing the hamburger seem highly unlikely. Note that Hamburger article makes no such claims. Dpbsmith 20:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary says: "Because the world has eaten countless hamburgers, the origins of the name may be of interest to many. By the middle of the 19th century people in the port city of Hamburg, Germany, enjoyed a form of pounded beef called Hamburg steak. The large numbers of Germans who migrated to North America during this time probably brought the dish and its name along with them. The entrée may have appeared on an American menu as early as 1836, although the first recorded use of Hamburg steak is not found until 1884. The variant form hamburger steak, using the German adjective Hamburger meaning “from Hamburg,” first appears in a Walla Walla, Washington, newspaper in 1889. By 1902 we find the first description of a Hamburg steak close to our conception of the hamburger, namely a recipe calling for ground beef mixed with onion and pepper. By then the hamburger was on its way, to be followed—much later—by the shortened form burger, used in forming cheeseburger and the names of other variations on the basic burger, as well as on its own." It wasn't invented at Louis' Lunch. Dpbsmith 20:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We don't certify that it was, only that it's claimed. I rather suspect hamburgers were invented more than once. Hamburg steaks and hamburger steaks were eaten with knives and forks: it's a stretch to call them "hamburgers", until they get stuck between bread, which, if you'll follow the link to Louis' above, is what they say Louis did in 1900. (which you will note, following our external link from hamburger considerably precedes the popularity of the "hamburger sandwich" during World War II.) - Nunh-huh 20:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


-- Who would have thought that adding notable parts of a city's culture to its article would become so contentious? This continued removal is absurd. If you don't know their importance in the city, you should become acquainted with it before enforcing your intuitive prejudices. No resident of the city would question their inclusion. - Nunh-huh 21:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I await comment before re-adding the material. -- Nunh-huh 21:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I accept the invention of the hamburger as valid local lore worthy of mention. I've NPOV'ed it and moved it to the history section, avoiding issues of listing other eateries. Googling reveals other claimants. Common elements seems to be that the hamburger steak itself was introduced by German immigrants circa 1880's, that it was generally served as a sandwich by the time it was widely popularized at the St. Louis Worlds' Fair in 1904, and that who first put it on the bun is difficult to determine. Others include Charles "Hamburger Charlie" Nagreen of Seymour, Wis., said to have invented it in 1885 and served it at the at the Outgamie County Fair; Fletcher Davis of Texas and Frank Menches of Ohio who served in in the late 1880s (questionable) and brought it to the 1904 St. Louis Worlds' Fair (less questionable); and various restaurants in New York in the mid 1890s at the request of sailors who had eaten Otto Kuasw's "Deutsches Beefsteak" sandwiches in Hamburg. Dpbsmith 23:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) P. S. Won't be editing this again soon.


  • All that information would be useful in the hamburger article. - Nunh-huh 23:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And I may get around to putting it there. Dpbsmith 23:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Normally I would object to the inclusion of what might be viewed as "trivial" data about the restaurants in a city in an article. However, I've visited New Haven on several occasions (I've even eaten at Louis' Lunch). Every time, I've heard the story about the invention of the hamburger and the prohibition of ketchup. Additionally, literature from Yale University includes information about the more historical restaurants in New Haven, so I think the restaurant industry in New Haven deserves a place in the article.
Acegikmo1 23:23, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
So, Acegikmo1 when you ate at Louis' Lunch, how were the hamburgers? Dpbsmith 23:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I clearly agree <g>, but you'd think I were trying to introduce subversive information to pervert the minds of our youth from the hoops I'm being put through to do so! -- Nunh-huh 23:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's a big free Wiki and I'm going to keep my fingers out of this article for a while. Dpbsmith 23:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)



Hiya, new to Wiki-ing here, but figured New Haven needed a little oomphing up and more detail all around. I have no idea why people are against including the VERY important local eateries such as Louie's Lunch and Pepe's et al. New Haven is a highly culinary city and its identity is very much tied to the local restaurants. Hope my large revision isn't too much for anybody. - Soldaatvanoranje 0102 UTC

  • It's a very nice addition! Do you think that there should be some discussion about the New Haven Green and the initial "9-square" layout of the city? or perhaps there is enough material for a New Haven Green article? After all, how many cities have three rival churches in their center! -- Nunh-huh 01:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nunh-huh! I am all very new to this so Im glad to get feedback. I am sure there's room somewhere in the new haven article for a complete discussion of the city's layout and maybe even it's neighborhoods. And definitely room for a New Haven Green article. :D Soldaatvanoranje 03:07 UTC, Mar 19, 2004 (Oh and you might want to check out what I've added to the Orange, Milford, and Woodbridge wiki entries as well)

RickK writes: "But what do we do in the future if an editor insists on adding two or three stores or restaurants and won't let the ads be removed?"

  • What I might do is take two steps back and consider [1] that my characterization of a mention of a store or restaurant as an "ad" might not be entirely accurate, and [2] that the editor just might conceivably have a better idea of what is important to mention than I do. If after consideration I still had doubts, I might [3] want to do some research rather than immediately implementing my "feelings" about the issue. I would also consider [4] discussing the issue on the article's talk page rather than in edit summaries. -- Nunh-huh 02:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-added the restaurant names as part of a section outlining the cuisine and culinary heritage of New Haven; is this acceptable? Pizza, for one, has served as a major cultural touchstone for the city and its Italian-American community and I think it is important enough to warrant the mention of the two already well-known and landmark-status eateries listed in the article. Please also review the entire New Haven article, as well as my new entries on Greater New Haven, the local Quinnipiack tribe, and local landmarks such as the New Haven Coliseum and the New Haven Green. Hopefully I've made each article more significant than stub status. Thanks! --- Sol. v. Oranje 17:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RickK writes: My concern was not with some place that claims to have invented the hamburger: it was just that the original poster was adding off-the-cuff pizza places that, at least as far as was indicated in the article, had no particular significance except possibly to the poster. To me, this is POV: "These are the places you should eat at, not any others."

  • The "original poster" added them here
  • You reverted without explanation here
  • A "second poster" (me) re-added the information, with less effusive tone, here
  • You then went on a campaign of reversion, calling them "advertisements"
  • all without a word on the talk page.
  • and apparently with no thought even at present that you might have been in error or overly hasty, despite the fact that two people had thought them important enough to add.

No one who knows anything about New Haven has questioned the inclusion of these three places. Instead, they make assumptions about what should be of note, rather than find out what is of note. That is POV. "Off-the-cuff" and "these are the places you should eat" are your misinterpretations, not factual assessments. -- Nunh-huh 01:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Nunh-huh, but that last paragraph doesn't make any sense. Firstly, Wikipedia editors cannot be required to know anything about New Haven. Secondly, they do not need to know anything about New Haven to find that an article is biased. Thirdly, what people that know anything about New Haven think should be of note is entirely irrelevant. Forthly, your use of "misinterpretation" is POV. If you scratch the "mis", it'll be less POV, but then you'll see that it is no more and no less valid than your own interpretation, which you seem to think is "truth" or somesuch. — Timwi 03:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[1] Wikipedia editors who edit the New Haven article really should know something about New Haven. [2] There was not "finding" of bias in the article. [3] Clearly people who know New Haven are more competent to judge what is "important to mention" than people who don't. [4] To equate the readdition of information about restaurants as an exhortation to eat there is a misinterpretation -- an overinterpretation, if you prefer. [5] Yes, I do think I am right; yes, I do think Wikipedia was quite unwelcoming to the original editor, who was making a useful addition, not indulging in vandalism; and yes, I do think that a coterie of sysops were overly aggressive in subsequent edit warring. Yes, that is a POV, one which I am free to express on a talk page. -- Nunh-huh 04:20, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trudeau Doonesbury cartoons on walls of Sally's Apizza?

I said I would keep my fingers out of this article for a while, so I won't add this myself, but is it true that Sally's Apizza was a favorite hangout of cartoonist Garry Trudeau when he was at Yale and that the walls are decorated with a liberal collection of autographed Doonesbury cartoons? Because, if so, some might that worthy of note. Dpbsmith 20:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"

Some might think Frank Sinatra's 2-hour long pilgrimages from NYC more noteworthy. From this site:

Sally's Apizza 237 Wooster St. New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 624-5271 New Haven’s Wooster Street is to pizza what Newcastle is to coal and Maine is to lobster. The two great rivals are Frank Pepe’s and Sally’s Apizza. At Sally’s, memorabilia of famous patrons line the walls of the tiny pizzeria. A picture of Frank Sinatra is on one wall, while a Doonesbury cartoon of Zonker Harris is on another. Sally’s is known for its New York-style pizza and even native New Yorkers have been known to declare this the best, period. The coal fueled brick oven produces a delectable pie where the mozzarella just seems melded into the tomato sauce and crust. It is truly something that must be experienced. When the local college students are hungry, lines may last for two hours for a slice of Sally’s incredible thin crust brick oven pizza.

But I won't be adding it. -- Nunh-huh 20:29, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Notable New Haveners

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but I made a revision to the New Haven entry. Under notable New Haveners I found the name of "Jesse Richards." I know of this person and he is far from notable. He is a local artist of no notoriety and has placed his own name on this list for publicity. I do not believe that a local artist how works in a tobaco and newspaper shop should be placed along with the names of a president of the United States, the founder of physical chemistry and the inventor of the cotton gin.

I have added Mr. Richards back as a notable New Havener as the person writing above has removed Mr. Richards out of jealousy. Jesse Richards is a notable artist and filmmaker, has had paintings shown in a national gallery in the UK, has had a film in a major film festival- The New York International Independent Film and Video Festival, in 2003, and is well known in the East Village punk/art/film scene.

Your assertion that Jesse Richards is notable might carry more weight if you yourself were unassociated with him [3]. But if you think you can make the case, the place to do it is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesse Richards. - Nunh-huh 05:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously Richards was considered an important Stuckist artist because Wikipedia decided to keep his page.

  • I have added William Howard Taft, the 27th President of the United States, to the list. According to the apartment building management I am in living in now (Taft Apartments), he spent 8 years living here after his presidency. The William Howard Taft article indicates the he was in New Haven after his presidency. Mosquitopsu 22:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Taft lived on Prospect St. near what is now Farnam Gardens. His house is no longer standing. Chick Bowen 14:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Two other New Haveners for consideration: playwrite, Eugene O'Niel and vocal artist, Karen Carpenter. Carpenter was born in New Haven, but moved to California when she was a teen. Karlhahn 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits re town/gown divide

for my money, yale seems to be trying to engage the city more lately. both in a citizenly way, and also by replacing old yale institutions with big retail chains. Gzuckier 05:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the original edit was hopelessly POV, as Nunh-huh rather forcefully pointed out. A history of town-gown relations, Ezra Stiles to Rick Levin, might be useful, but it would have to be done in such a way as to be objective and verifiable—which is tricky, since when it comes down to it, some New Haveners hate Yale and some of 'em don't. Chick Bowen 11:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Yale Alumni?

We have a whole Notable Yale alumni and natives section in the New Haven article. I believe that is unnecessary and a list of Notable people born in New Haven or have resided here for a long period would be much more appropriate to the article. SandBoxer 06:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that someone had removed G.W. Bush from the natives list becuase he did not live in NH long. Regardless of how long he lived there he was a native. This brought my attention to the list. I noticed that numerous people on the list (which was headed "Notable New Haven Natives" or something like that) were not born in N.H. but rather had Yale connections. I started to remove them since they did not belong in a list of natives. Then I was finding so many of them that I started to think that perhaps a more appropriate approach would be to rename the section. A peek at the history showed that indeed several weeks ago the section had been for natives and Yale alumni. I replaced the folks whom I'd removed and I changed the section title. It probably should be changed again, since I believe some of those folks are neither natives not Yale alumni but are Yale faculty. I am totally comfortable with not having anything about Yale be in the section header, but if that is the case then we must remove the numerous people in the list who are not natives. In short: I don't really have strong feeling about what the list should be, but I do stronly assert that the list header should match the list contents. Moleskiner 01:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited the section to include people who were born, or lived in New Haven for an extended period of time, but excluded those who only lived in the city while attending Yale. I exempted Yale faculty because, as they taught at Yale, they would've also lived in the immediate vicinity. Perhaps the list should be retitled "famous New Haven residents", since "native" implies birth. Gromitjc 17:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe anything regarding yale alum is irrelevant to this article. I understand New Haven residents are very proud of having such a prestiuous university in their city, but if Yale alum are going to be listed in this article then so should alum of Albertus Magnus college (and there is a another school in the immediate vicinity of yale...college of new haven?...i forget- check google maps). Personally i feel that no alum from any school should be listed in the notable residents section of this article. I also feel this is a problem unique to the New Haven article. The NYC article does not have a section about alum of columbia, NYU, Rockefeller, etc, all very highly regarded schools also...I just dont see how it is relevant. WikiTony 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claire's Cornercopia?

Hi. I grew up in New Haven and I think this article is pretty good. I have a small perhaps petty objection. While Claire's Cornercopia is notable for its longevity and lots of people really like it, I don't believe that its food is "exceptionally highly regarded." NSpector 06:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true! The food is barfilicious!

Oh my God. I can't believe someone answered me. I've been checking here almost every day for over a month now. I'm not sure I'd publicly go as far as "barfilicious," but I did stop eating there many years ago after several unpleasant food experiences. NSpector 20:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Claire's is extremely over-rated, I think for 2 reasons: 1) Claire herself is highly regarded (deservedly so) as a trailblazer in vegetarian cuisine, having opened one of the first vegetarian restaurants on the East Coast outside of New York. Therefore, many folks from, particularly from outside New Haven, assume the food is far better than we know it is. 2) Yale graduates everywhere remember Claire's food from their college days - and like many experiences from college, the memories tend to grow rosier with time.

Well, not all Yale graduates... presumably only those attending since 1975. Also, it's Claire's Corner Copia, not Claire's Cornercopia. - Nunh-huh 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telephone Company

The DIstrict Telephone Company of New Haven created the world's first telephone exchange and first telephone directory (1878) and installed the first public phone (1880). The company expanded and became the Connecticut Telephone Company, then the Southern New England Telephone Company. Is this too trivial for inclusion? Jd2718 12:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Added, though it should get a reference. -- Beland 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separating Yale Alumni and New Haven Natives

Per the discussion above, I'm going to try to separate New Haveners and Yalies.

That makes the most sense to me, since information won't be lost, it will just be reorganized.

Thoughts? Aroundthewayboy 06:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify:

Anyone born in New Haven was classified as a New Haven native (with the singular exception of George W. Bush, who has fully and publicly renounced being a New Havener and identifies (iconically, some might say) as a Texan).

Additionally, if people spent significant portions of their adult lives in New Haven without being on the Yale faculty, I also included them in the New Haven list.

If they were not born in New Haven but only taught or went to Yale, I put them in the Yale section (which, btw, I would not mind seeing deleted -- doesn't the Yale page have its own, more complete list of notable alumni and faculty?).

As a New Haven native (and typing this from New Haven), I think this is very important, because being a New Havener is distinct from being a Yalie. Some New Haveners become Yalies or start as Yalies, but the two are very distinct. Aroundthewayboy 07:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


George W. Bush has fully and publicly renounced being a New Havener? Specifically? Or do you just mean he has publicly expressed that he identifies himself as a Texan? He certainly hasn't denied being born in New Haven. But he hardly grew up in New Haven, so could he even be considered a New Havener even if he want to be? NSpector 04:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Light Rail

Mass transit proposals are, AFAIK, a dime a dozen. If the New Haven - Springfield (light rail??? maybe some sort of commuter rail??) proposal was being built, it might belong. But I'm deleting until then Jd2718 00:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Panthers Trial of 1970

The section on post-colonial history mentions that New Haven was the venue for the Amistaad trial, so shouldn't the modern history section mention that New Haven was in 1970-71 also the venue for the trial of 13 members of the Black Panther Party on charges of murder? The defendents included BPP's then president, Bobby Seale. That trial got national news coverage back then. Karlhahn 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point!!!Gzuckier 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The trial is important, and should be included. I think the contribution needs to be greatly condensed. What details are relevant for the history of New Haven? The HR Clinton stuff probably belongs in an article on Hillary herself. Details of the crime (the street address??) probably can be omitted. I'd rather get a little discussion before I try to pare anything back. Jd2718 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've loaded pretty much all of it in, seems to me maybe it needs its own page? Leave the highlights here? Gzuckier 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. Will you do that, or would you like help summarizing? Jd2718 13:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll kick it off, (God willing). Feel free to mangle my cherished and beautiful wordsmithing (ooops, did i say that outloud? (^_^)) Gzuckier 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Your addition on this topic is more than I expected, but I like it. I lived in the NH area at that time, and reading of those events it brings back memories of my adolescence. One thing missing, though, is the results of the trial. I recall (but please verify) that the jury hung 11 to 1 in favor of aquittal on Bobby Seale and 10 to 2 on Ericka Huggins (local BPP chairperson). The alleged trigger man (who turned states evidence) and at least one other defendant were convicted. The rest were either aquitted outright or hung the jury. Karlhahn 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Development/Redevelopment

The article contains references to new development, new biomedical firms, new housing (1000s of units), new restaurants (100s) sprinkled in several sections. Dates could be added (eg, "In the late 90's...," "under DeStefano.."). Or some specifics could be added. Otherwise they are unverifiable, and look like City of New Haven self-promo quotes. In addition, the revitalization of Downtown and many other neighborhoods should have neighborhoods or groups of neighborhoods specified. Jd2718 15:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Greater New England Area"?

Anyone object to the deletion of the last sentence of the first paragraph? I mean, the greater New England area goes right up to Greenwich; this seems a bit confusing. Oconduibh 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm just gonna go ahead and do it. Oconduibh 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map requests

Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Connecticut may be able to help!

Since the city's urban plan is of historical significance, it would be nice to have that illustrated. Also, since there are articles on neighborhoods, it would be useful to have a map showing where in the city they are. It seems to me it would also be useful to show the rivers that flow through the city, to illustrate why it was a local transportation hub in colonial times. -- Beland 03:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup

This article clearly has not been defluffed yet. At 56kb long, it has many sections equivalent cities would be lacking. I recommend the following removals based on precedent:

  1. 1970 trial, though put it on its own page and make link to it
  2. Greater New Haven, no other cities mention explicitly any of their suburbs unless referring to something that suburbs contributed (e.g. a school or a famous figure)
  3. The sports section looks lengthy enough to merit a split off to its own article, especially since it has subheadings
  4. Theatre, museums, music, points of interest. This travel brochure should be removed and moved to wikitravel. Trim this down to one section 10-12 sentences.
  5. Miscellaneous seems to be mostly trivia, also a candidate for its own page from lack of relevance to the article as a whole.
  6. Photos removed. With a link to the gallery left on the page. Other cities don't have these sorts of galleries on the page.
  7. Natives and Residents, continue the trend with Yale and Hopkins, put this on its own page with a link. Take all three categories, put under one heading "Notable residents of New Haven".

Also, history section trimmed, merged into one section, full text is put in its own article.

  • Crime: the word "crime" does not appear once in the article. You can compare crime indices to similar cities. A note on crime is clearly in order for this to represent the city accurately.

--Loodog 05:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planned? Walkable?

editing to the lead (positive) has laid bare this 1-sentence paragraph (2nd paragraph):

Founded in 1638, New Haven is considered the first planned city in the United States. Its walkable scale has helped it become one of the cities with the most pedestrian commuters.
  1. Who considers it the first planned city? Is it consensus enough, unchallenged, so that it can safely stand in the lead of the article?
  2. The walkable scale is bunk. The list cited is just a list of college towns. Jd2718 03:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The first planned city sentence is actually true. The roads in New Haven were designed in a geometric grid and weren't simply placed haphazardly between landmarks of importance, which was the method for creating towns in North America prior to 1638. Also, the properity divisions were decided apon before anyone began to build. Here are refs for it being the "first planned city"; [[4]] and [[5]]. As for the second statement, I don't think it's well founded or sourced. I am of the opinion that it should be removed, unless someone can source it. Chtirrell 04:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. I do not think, however, that laying out eight streets made New Haven a planned city. A surveyed town? In any event, the fact (they planned a grid of four streets by four streets, creating what are now commonly known as the "Nine Squares") is better than the synthesis which may not be quite right (NH is considered the first planned city in the United States) Jd2718 04:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest combining those two statements into one, with a slight change. For example, "NH is considered by some historians to be the first planned city in the United States, because the downtown area was planned to be a grid of four streets by four streets. This created what is now commonly known as the "Nine Squares."" or "Due to the downtown area being designed as a grid of four streets by four streets, many historians consider NH to be America's first planned city. This central grid is now commonly known as the "Nine Squares."" I believe this encompasses fully all sides of the story. I know for sure that I have read many instances of New Haven being named the "first planned city" being used in print texts, but I don't have them on hand at the moment. Chtirrell 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Very nice, I think that does the trick. I wouldn't want to conflate it with modern urban planning (which is a burden New Haven has borne), and I think your wording avoids that. The word "city" though is not really correct. Jd2718 05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I added in the new wording with a few slight changes. Instead of first planned city, I used "oldest formally planned community" which is the same term as one of the references. I also cahnged a bit of the sentence structure for proper flow and grammer. Hope this seems better :) Chtirrell 08:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is the second largest in CT

The was a change and a revert. The revert is correct. As of 2000 census:

1) Bridgeport: 139,529

2) New Haven: 123,626

3) Hartford: 121,578

The same is even true when comparing the 2003 estimates, though the gap between New Haven and Hartford is closing fast. Since 2002 est., they've been consistently within 400 of each other.--Loodog 04:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Amsterdam and New Haven

The conflict between New Amsterdam and Connecticut is well documented in Russell Shorto's new book, The Island at the Center of the World. Shorto uses many sources recently translated from long-lost archives. New Haven was merged into Connecticut because the Connecticut Colony gained a royal charter that year to control "all the land between Massachusetts and Virginia, extending to the Pacific" - this was done as a pretext for the takeover of the Dutch colony. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.247.162 (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Elms in the Elm City

I don't understand (and definitely disagree with) the desire to assert that New Haven didn't really lose its elm trees, or that plantings of other trees and disease-resistant elms have restored the condition that formerly existed. The simple fact is that New Haven's nickname derives from a condition that no longer exists, and that is the main point of the sentence about the loss of the elms. (Almost all of the elms died. Planting oaks, maples, ash trees, etc., will not restore it.) If you have never seen the aesthetic effect of a city street with a canopy of healthy mature elm trees (what New Haven formerly had), check out this photo. Also see before-and-after pictures from Detroit; before and after the Dutch elm disease hit there.--orlady 17:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

re the photos; Wow. Gzuckier 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Orlady. You've made the point better than I could have. For those of you familiar with modern New Haven, check out these photos from the Yale manuscript collection. Jd2718 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The city of New Haven still has a very active Elm tree planting program and a more healthy tree canopy than most American cities. The New Haven Green is now covered with mature elms. Because of city programs, the nadir of the elm tree disease in New Haven was in the early 1900s, not the mid-1900s as some people would suggest. Furthermore, maples, oaks, and ash trees were planted along with Elm trees stretching back to the early 1800s. To suggest that maples, oaks, etc are "replacing" the Elms is highly misleading. User: New Haven Historian.

Yes. If there is a debate on this it should be discussed in a subsection. Some people would argue that the replanted trees, and the non-elm species that have further matured since the 1930s (such as the "LINCOLN OAK" on the New Haven Green) are much larger than any of the 1800s or 1930s trees ever were. The fact that New Haven is the "Elm City", however, is not debatable. So let's just state that at the beginning of the article. --Syrcsemark

There is an online article in the Yale Alumni Magazine, The Elm City: Then and Now, that describes the situation and provides photos of elms at various dates. It confirms the replanting of elms on the green, but I continue to contend that the abundance of elms that gave the city its nickname are gone. The story of the elm demise is complicated, but I still would date the most significant die-off as the one in mid-century:

In the 1890s and again in 1908, the city was invaded by elm-leaf beetles, an accidentally introduced species from Europe with a voracious appetite for foliage. ...Roots were damaged as streets were excavated for gas lines and water mains and paved to carry automobile traffic. Many trees were removed when electric lines were installed.... Dutch elm disease, the trees' most infamous enemy, came in two stages. The first began in 1933, when the fungus Ophiostoma ulmi, which causes the disease, appeared in Connecticut. ...In this initial iteration, the fungus spread slowly. Far more damaging was the 1938 hurricane, which brought down 13,500 trees in New Haven alone, many of them elms weakened by disease. Then came the second wave of Dutch elm disease, a new and more virulent species that arose in the Midwest in the 1940s and went on to devastate elms throughout the country. Only some two dozen survived on the New Haven Green. At its nadir, the famously shady Green had become a sunny lawn. In 1988 the New York Times wrote that, for many decades, "the Elm City title has been a hollow one."

The replanting of elms, especially on the green, is impressive (judging from photos like this one ) and deserves a mention, but not in the introduction to the article; tell about it later on. --orlady 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly debate, because the trees planted around New Haven right now are much taller and more mature than they ever were in the 1930s. This is especially apparent if you go around some of the neighborhoods, but even on the New Haven Green, too. If they were not, the City would have long ago abandoned its nickname. Maybe it should be called the "Large Tree City" but "Elm City" is definitely not a misnomer. -Syrcsemark

[edit] Densest downtowns?

A few problems with "one of the densest downtowns" statement:

  1. I cannot find any verification that New Haven's downtown has a density of 6000/km2.
  2. We're talking about 6936 people, so the area in question is a half mile by half mile, anyway; I don't know if densities mean anything at that level of granularity.
  3. I cannot find any verification that 6000/km2 would be one of the densest downtowns in the country. I can think of 20 cities off the top of my head that would be good candidates for higher downtown densities, particularly if you allow "downtown" to be defined over a tailored enough region.
  4. The density in question is residential density, which has more to do with the function of a neighborhood than its compactness.--Loodog 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You are right, esp in regard to the tailored region. Whatever numbers we have will almost perforce be non-comparable. Also, in general we should be careful of superlatives. Jd2718 04:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The information is in the City of New Haven's Comprehensive Plan Report, Downtown Section, which is available from the City Plan Department website. The report is dated 2003. The information in the report comes from a Federal source discussing CBDs and directly compares New Haven with cities with lower downtown densities - such as Denver.

To address your other points, CBD densities are very important because they show the residential quality of the business district. The higher the residential compactness, the more likely late-night businesses will open, and also the greater percentage of corporate employees who will be able to walk to work. New Haven may be a typical downtown in terms of luncheonettes, etc., but if you look at the number of 24-hour businesses, delis and all the other places open until 2 a.m. or later, it is highly unusual. This is just a side effect of it having one of the densest residential downtowns in the United States, but is of secondary importance just to the fact that New Haven does have a unique mix of businesses and high-density housing at its center.

-Syrcsemark

I still have the following problems:
  1. Page 3 of the referenced report steps down a bit from declaring an unequivocal fact, "A recent Fannie Mae report indicates that New Haven's downtown population exceeds that of larger cities".
  2. Also says "... by population density [New Haven]is...ahead of well-known residential downtowns like Seattle, Chicago, and Baltimore." Any definition of "downtown" and "density" that puts New Haven ahead of Chicago (which has twice its density) is doing a piss-poor job of measuring numbers of 24-hour businesses, late-night delis, and other effects of density.
  3. We're still looking at an area of 1/4 acre. I could pick a block in Chicago and compare that density to all the world, declaring it to be the highest. For example, Dwight, as a neighborhood, has a higher density than downtown.
This being said, I would have no trouble with what the statement is apparently trying to say, "New Haven is a residentially centralized city," though even here superlatives should be avoided.--Loodog 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Syrcsemark: 1) The densities are clearly listed. 2) New Haven has a surprisingly large number of residential services for a downtown of its size. Chicago is a dense city, but its downtown area is given over to business services rather than residents. 3) It is a much larger area than 1/4 acre. You could not pick a block in Chicago and compare it, because that block would not be a CBD (Central Business District). The definitions of Central Business Districts (downtowns) are quite clear, and by that measure, New Haven has one of the highest population densities of any CBD - just like Manhattan or San Francisco.
Responding:
  1. Acreage: 6000/km2, population of 6936 = approx 1km2 = 1/4 acre.
  2. To say "New Haven has a surprisingly large number of residential services for a downtown of its size" is a bit like saying New Haven is big for its size.
  3. The purpose of my "one block" comment wasn't to denote the arbitrariness of the choice of region, but to illustrate just how small the area being considered is.
Again, I feel the accurate message would be "New Haven has a particularly residential CBD." or "New Haven is a residentially centralized city.", rather than "New Haven is very dense."--Loodog 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This really fails the "So what?" test. Jd2718 03:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There are more than 6936 people living downtown (you are using a differently calculated source) and the area in question is far more than 1/4 acre in size (your calculations are way, way off - just the area of the New Haven Green itself is about 17 acres). - Syrcsemark
My fault. Naive unit conversion: 4000m2 is not 4km2. Should be 1km2 = 1,000,000m2 = 250acres. Still, according to page 5 of this report, area is .47 mi2=1.2km2, pop is 6936. A seven minute walk, from side to side. Four Manhattan city blocks. Points 1, 2, and 3 still hold.--Loodog 05:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a final vote and then we change the article: For discarding the "densest downtowns" statement

Agree
  • I agree, for reason above. The densest downtowns statement is misleading and doesn't mean much as a statistic.--Loodog 21:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, discard. New Haven is New Haven, with a compact downtown and a university campus immediately adjacent, and some mixed zoning. The superlative is silly. Jd2718 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree
  • The statistic is a valid one, fundamental to the nature of the city, and is highlighted by the City Planning department, among others, as an important characteristic that sets New Haven apart from other, much more spread-out cities. New Haven is so dense because it is so old. That deserves to be pointed out. -Syrcsemark
Comment: Overall density is dependent on age and city size and it is a measure of how "spread-out" a city is. Residential CBD density is not. Again, why this is misleading.--Loodog 16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed, let me know how you like.--Loodog 14:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/Talk%7ENew_Haven%2C_Connecticut_e254.html"