An opening slide from 2002's Convergence. “The Green is big enough, gracious enough, generous enough to tolerate many different people.”And public space — well, ​“public space is not always fun.” That’s kind of the point.So argues Elihu Rubin, a Yale architecture professor and documentarian of the Green, as he cautioned against too many permanent changes to the city’s great public square at a time when a redesign is on the horizon.Rubin is currently the Henry Hart Rice Associate Professor of Architecture and Urban Studies at Yale. (He’s also actively involved in trying to save and repurpose the Goffe Street Armory, and regularly teaches his Yale students all about New Haven’s architectural and urban history.) But before that, 23 years to be precise, he was a recent Yale grad and documentary filmmaker who co-made the 2002 film Convergence, all about a mass musical event composed by Neely Bruce on the Green — as well as about the history of the Green itself.As the city contemplates big changes for the Green — including, potentially, kiosks, rinks, fountains, a café with seating and bathrooms, a playground, and a closing off to cars of Temple Street between Chapel and Elm — the Independent asked Rubin to reflect on his movie about the Green from 23 years ago, and his thoughts on the public greenspace today. These decades later, Rubin remains as passionate as ever about the Green — and is wary of any major changes. (Click here for a separate article about why some leaders at Center Church on the Green are also cautioning against tearing up too much of the Upper Green, but for very different reasons.)“What makes the [Green] a great public space is that it tolerates public free speech, it tolerates all kinds of things and behaviors, it’s not a convivial theme park, it tolerates free speech and difference,” Rubin told the Independent. ​“That’s why it shouldn’t become a playground. Sometimes you’re offended, but that’s what makes it great, that it’s a place that’s not always comfortable.”Here are some highlights from the interview. And click on the video below to watch Rubin’s 2002 documentary in full.The Independent: In 2002 the International Festival of Arts & Ideas commissioned you to document a musical performance called ​“Convergence,” by composer Neely Bruce. It was a vast bringing together of choirs, performers, orchestras, bands to one great cacophonous symbolic moment on the Green. You agreed to make the movie provided you could join the documentation with a history of the Green. So how does the movie hold up today? If you were making another film about the Green, what would be different? What the same?Rubin: It holds up because the characters hold up — Neely Bruce, Newt Schenk [then a proprietor],Vincent Scully [distinguished Yale architecture historian], but the film doesn’t address some of the deeper social, even public policy and human challenges of the Green. There needs to be a more sophisticated take that public spaces can be difficult. They can be challenging. I’m all in favor of safety for public space, and that it should be fun. But I’d argue against that [as the sole or even main purpose]. Because they are cosmopolitan. They tolerate difference. It doesn’t have to be ​‘kumbaya.’ It’s more of a mutual co-presence. [Rubin referenced sociologist Erving Goffman’s concept of mutual or civil inattention.] This can sound like over-intellectualizing, but, yeah, public spaces need to tolerate.… People should be allowed to loiter, to sleep on the Green; if there’s nowhere else for them to go, then it’s bringing forth a social challenge [that needs to be addressed]. The Green is big enough, gracious enough, generous enough to tolerate many different people.What’s your take on the kinds of changes being suggested?I don’t know [specifically] what’s being suggested, but it doesn’t need additional design. It’s all already there! That’s not to say it shouldn’t be programmed at different times. But my own strong feeling now is that interventions in the Green should be ephemeral. I’d really be nervous about hardscape changes to try to design some kind of urban sitting room. If some kind of child’s play [apparatus], then let it be temporary. Maybe for an entire season, see how it goes. Like MoMa PS1, in Long Island City. Do ephemeral stuff in different places, keep it moving. Like Black Wall Street, which was beautiful. We already do stuff like that. Black Wall Street is already the new Green. If we want the Green to be more inclusive, the way is to produce more environments that are more invitational to more people. I personally feel safe on the Green. Maybe that’s my privilege. [But for those who don’t feel safe,] what exactly are the issues and failures in public policy that it represents? Let’s address those issues instead of changing [the Green’s] social composition.What central theme or frame would animate a movie you made about the Green today?It would be more ethnographic of everyday users [of the Green]: Someone waiting for the bus. Someone who works at a fast food joint. Someone sitting minding their own business. To try to get a sense of the people who use the Green, as opposed to looking at one of these ephemeral rituals [like the all-over cacophonous concert in Convergence]. That, and like May Day in 1970, those are big unifying events, the beauty of convergence. However, a film today would be a little more quiet. The Green as plural, not one space. This is the second main point: It’s different places at different times for different people. This is the trick to architecture. The Green appears to be unitary, but it’s plural, an infinite number of places at the same time. That’s why I like the openness of it and then within the openness we can program the ephemeral moments that will continually change. If we want more kids playing, fine, let them come [on a new temporary apparatus] from April to October, and then in winter, let’s have Snowman Building Day!How does the debate today about changes on the Green differ from those of the past? That is, do you see any over-riding issues unique to the moment?One big difference is we are at a moment in American cities when we are ramping up the discussion of urban mobility… electric bike share, micro mobility, pedestrian environments, the mania for bike lanes, whether people use them or not. Closing Temple Street temporarily? Go for it, let’s see what comes of it. But how do we use this [moment] to invest in our bus system, to make it first class? I’m a huge advocate for a useful bus system; I am not a bike lane fanatic. I would rather see money go into the bus system, and if this is an opportunity to rethink the switching node [that is, the Green as the hub of the bus network’s hub and spoke system], let’s make sure we understand how it works. We need to double-down on the bus. New Haven should be known in ten years as one of the best bus services.I fall into a camp of being more conservative with the Green. You can’t be blindly bound to tradition. Cities must change, and they can change [the Green] in ways more playful, ephemeral, program-based. The ​“if you build it, they will come” is a fallacy. We also have an epidemic of kids addicted to cell phones. If we have a Green where kids would rather climb up a tree, we should do that! I do agree with Vincent Scully that there is no substitute for public space, even though the evidence points to that most public space today is media, much of which, we’ve found, sucks, as it’s created a health epidemic and it’s killing people; I feel it in my own life.Was there some particular moment in the history of the Green beginning in 1638 until today that has some sort of past-may-be-prologue lesson or useful paradigm in it for today?The big one was the introduction of cars. This is New Haven’s story. In 1948 the trolleys are ripped up. And city planners become apoplectic and will do anything to fix the cities for automobiles even if it means wholesale demolition of huge swaths [like the immigrant Oak Street neighborhood razed for today’s Route 34]. This is when New Haven got a reputation for building epic garages. And they were thinking of a garage under the Green. New Haven looked to Boston where they had built a garage under the Boston Common. How convenient! There was a real proposal floated, although I’m not sure how much traction it got. Then the Proprietors stepped in and said: ​“No.” And, yes, the beauty of the Proprietors’ is that they held democracy in check.That brings me to the Proprietors of the Green. What do you think of the arrangement? Their power over the situation? Should it remain? And what of the ongoing public process, the public input meetings the city convenes and the new committee being formed to shepherd proposals through once decided on?I’ve no doubt about the Proprietors’ [and the city’s] sincerity, but they should be transparent. That’s the key point. It’s great to have public meetings, but don’t make it seem like a public process if it’s not. It’s best for them to say, ​“We’re open to be influenced by what you, the public, has to say, but it’s OUR decision.” You can’t have it both ways. If you have the Proprietors, they run the show. I don’t think they should be out there all the time. They need to maintain their absolute authority. In the end I think the Proprietors serve a good check-and-balance even though it seems un-democratic. It’s a group that has a long-range view. Politicians, who care about re-election, need this group with a long range view … This is an urban planning idea … that has the best interest of the Green in mind over time. In places like New York, even Central Park, it’s corporations and quasi-corporations and real estate companies setting the agenda of public spaces. And I think in the end though it may be anti-democratic, it’s better to take it out of the hands of exclusively local government. Yes, it is self-perpetuating, totally elitist! However, the fact that the Green has been as resilient as it is, that it has not been over-programmed and parking-lotted-out, that is itself a recommendation for the ProprietorsWhat is the fantasy, Dream Green of Elihu Rubin? I don’t want to be taken for an obnoxious individual because many people do feel the Green’s unsafe. Fair point. But let’s use ephemeral installations and programming to build up a different kind of social life there. If part of that is closing Temple Street, we should be absolutely sure that’s a good idea. And, by the way, you can do that temporarily too, with bollards and things. An experiment, but do it in a way that has a light touch.Public spaces are supposed to reflect urban challenges; if not, how do we know? You can’t hide addiction or mental health epidemics. They need to surface. That’s why pubic space is not always fun. That doesn’t mean you should feel unsafe or be harassed. Nobody should stop you from playing on the Green. Just go, do what you do, but don’t run around naked, don’t break the law. But get out of your head the idea that public spaces should be fun all the time.I loved Occupy New Haven, in 2011. The Proprietors were extremely tolerant, they let it go on all winter to their great credit, until they decided there was a public health nuisance or risk and the police had to clear it. It was very beautiful. If it were just the mayor or the police or public works, they may have kicked them out sooner. That’s one reason I have a kind of weird loyalty to the Proprietors and it was something only they could do, and it was strong.Whatever is done should be done to allow maximum flexibility. You don’t want to over-determine functions; you don’t want it over-specific. Does it take more time and more money for programming for software instead of hardware? My feeling is that it’s worth it. You avoid this over-determination, a specific kiosk or playground. Look, there’s something dismal about an abandoned playscape in winter. And I’d rather see dollars spent on buses rather than on any hardscape changes on the Green itself.Thank you for your time and your thoughts.Rubin, at a 2023 Goffe Street Armory planning meeting. See below for other recent articles about the Green.• Green Remakers Face Grave Question• Big Changes Eyed For The Green