New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | November 19, 2009 9:22 AM

Since (theoretically) we shed aristocracy in favor of meritocracy two centuries ago, can we ease off on the use of the title "Lord"???? The guy's just an architect after all.

BTW, the use of "an" before "historic" is a speech useage when slurring out the "h" ...not a written useage.

Posted by: anon | November 19, 2009 10:04 AM

"Too close to the driveway?"

Is this a suburb, or the heart of one of the most important downtowns in the Northeast?

Posted by: Pedro | November 19, 2009 10:07 AM

Actually in writing either usage of a or an for historic is acceptable.
Norman Foster is British and is a member of the house of Lords.

If you want to go over the top, his title is technically Baron Foster of Thames Bank (I know!). But just like I don't think there's anything wrong calling the Queen Queen Elizabeth, rather than just Elizabeth Windsor, it's not the end of the world if we use the title that the person has received from the country they are from.

But I digress! It would be very instructive to see elevations as to how the building would sit on the site. It's not as tall as 155 Whitney, but since it's so much larger it might be instructive to see just how this large building will "play well" with the surrounding area.

Posted by: Gretchen Pritchard | November 19, 2009 10:16 AM

"The bold architectural design will also 'help put us even further on the map as a distinctive city,' he said."

Oh, goody. Just like Beinecke Plaza and the Knights of Columbus tower and the Colosseum and the Church Street South projects and the brutalist Police Headquarters and the Route 34 Connector and all those other bright ideas from when New Haven was the Model City.

Can't wait.

Have the enthusiasts of "shiny new" glass-and-steel architecture still not noticed that its only appeal is the fact of being shiny and new? That when modernist buildings are no longer new, they have nothing going for them? Concrete and steel do not age gracefully like brick and stone. They just start to look like an old appliance or a beat-up car.

Posted by: Gretchen Pritchard | November 19, 2009 10:18 AM

ANON, it's not downtown. It's just at the point where Whitney Avenue changes from being the edge of downtown to where it becomes a residential area. It's seriously out of scale and out of style with its surroundings as far as I can see from the illustrations.

Posted by: ROBN | November 19, 2009 11:10 AM

PEDRO,

...only when the "h" is silent, i.e.
a hero
an hour

The "h" in historic only becomes silent when spoken.

Speaking of historicism...why is the color palette so coldly corporate clinical???...big blue walls? Does Yale think that the public won't be able to figure out who owns the building? I expect this kind of self-absorption from banks and chain stores, but I kind-of thought Yale was a bit more dignified.

Posted by: I love chee-zits | November 19, 2009 11:49 AM

Wow, I agree with all the criticism. I have always wanted to submit a picture to Kunstler's website "Cluster.. Nation" for the Architectural Eyesore of the Month. This would send him into orbit. And the Latin quote at the end, really pretentious. I can hear Michael saying it!

Posted by: Resident | November 19, 2009 11:59 AM

Hi...I'm Yale and I can do whatever I damn well want. After all, New Haven needs me more than the other way around...lol.

Posted by: East Rockette | November 19, 2009 12:00 PM

I too would love to see some renderings of how the building will speak to its neighbours, including but not limited to the Peabody over the road, and the gracious houses along Lincoln St at the back, as well as the lawn club.

I'm vaguely heartened to hear about the greenspace replacing the eyesore parking lots -- we can always do with more greenery, and the birds and bees of New Haven will thank you -- but will it be accessible and welcoming, or will it be a private garden? Any pics available of how it will look around the back of the building?

While I'm talking about greenery, will the gorgeous and ancient ginkgo tree out the front of 175 be preserved? (If not, where will I take spectacular autumn photos of my kids in their groovy yellow raincoats??)

And how about the carefully groomed truffula-tree yew next to 155? A wee treasure, cherished by the gardeners and amusing small children for a generation.

Will there still be a public access walkway (we call it "The Shortcut" hereabouts, and it's a crucial part of the mental "walking map" of downtown) through from Whitney to Pearl/Lincoln and the new Romeo's cafe, thus continuing to integrate the campus with Orange and State St and beyond?

Will there be benches out the front, upon which to sit and eat lunch from the hot trucks on Sachem St?

How long before pedestrians wear trails into the pristine bank of grass along the front of the building?

What happens to the butterfly research house next to the driveway?

Is there enough space under that overhang at the front of the building for everyone to shelter when there's the inevitable fire drill during a snowstorm? Is there enough space for random passersby to shelter during a cloudburst?

Not that I'll ever get to use the inside of the building, but will there be groupings of armchairs and coffee tables in that vast curving high-ceilinged corridor, or will it just be another massive, echoing, empty space?

And yes, I'm all for transparency and light, but what's with all the chilly blue and chrome, and those enormous windows leaking heat? CT is cold enough in the winters!

And speaking of the weather, has the wind-tunnelling micro-climate effect been assessed? I'm thinking, like Gretchen, of the incredibly inhospitable corners around campus and town, most of them associated with these brutally blockish structures. See also Beinecke Plaza, which positively swarming with happy crowds at all times of day, NOT! and the ghastly, moaning, windswept and derelict area at the base of Klein Tower, possibly haunted by demons, but never by students or anyone warm-blooded.

Apart from that, carry on, as you were, tally ho, etc.

Posted by: ELD4676 | November 19, 2009 12:57 PM

New haven is an OLD New England city. Why does Yale keep building ultra-modern facilities that clash with the existing architecture? It looks ridiculous.

Look at the house and surrounding structures in East Rock.... a glass and concrete building won't jive. Is there anyway we can build that thing out of brick?

Posted by: JB | November 19, 2009 1:34 PM

I agree, that the building design doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. Why the bright blue on the outside, by the way? It looks like a color for a pre-school- bright and shiny Crayola color.

Posted by: nutmeg | November 19, 2009 2:32 PM

what gate does my flight depart from?

Posted by: neighbor | November 19, 2009 2:33 PM

I'm excited to hear about the fancy new SOM building, and would welcome it to the neighborhood. I love the idea that one of the best business schools in the country will be building their state of the art headquarters in our neighborhood. However, I agree with some of the other posters about the design (particularly fom the front). What's with those thin metal columns in the front, looks like a big cage! I dont mind it being modern, but agree with Gretchen - how will the steel, concrete, and blue look in 40 yrs? how about some brick and stone work to tie it in with the neighborhood? thnx

Posted by: Dans | November 19, 2009 2:50 PM

Does this elm city, this country, really need more business students? What value does the product (the graduates) of this school give to the surrounding community? I doubt very much as they all bolt right after they pay their last bill.
I don't think there is a more transient group of graduate students.

As for the design, banal...a combination of gutless and soulless. Gretchen's post is right on the money.

Posted by: anon | November 19, 2009 2:59 PM

Gretchen: I was not commenting on the scale of the building - I am talking about the driveway comment. New Haven is a city, not a strip mall. Driveways and "curb cuts" should be dramatically narrowed, if not eliminated altogether where possible (e.g., by combining all the ones on Whalley avenue -- it is ridiculous how many there are in close proximity of one another), in order to improve the pedestrian experience of our city. Every curb cut in the sidewalk creates pedestrian delays and reduces comfort levels and sometimes safety.

The Lawn Club currently has several driveways, which incrementally add up to making the neighborhood more difficult to traverse on foot. Let's narrow them down.

Posted by: anon | November 19, 2009 3:25 PM

Dans, I would say the City should do everything it can to fast-track the expansion. More students means more revenue and jobs for the city.

The demand for MBAs at Yale far exceeds the number of spaces available there, and always will -- in some ways, Yale is probably thinking "too small" here. It would be much better for our local economy if they built a 20 story building and hired another 200 staff.

Hopefully they are already thinking about an expansion spot for their second building.

On the issue of MBA graduates' contribution to the world, I don't see that being different from any other degree (i.e., no different than a BA, MD, JD, MArch, or what have you). Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Students study one thing and they most frequently end up doing another. According to the last data I saw, Yale MBA graduates were several times more likely to work for nonprofits or in the public sector after graduation than MBA graduates of just about any other American program, and I'm sure that trend will continue given the increasing relative importance of our public sector.

Posted by: Pioneer | November 19, 2009 4:10 PM

Times change, we can't keep some buildings up forever. I can understand that people might want to keep two old buildings up, but lets think the future. Eventually, those buildings will be replaced by something like this no matter what. Why not do it now?

Posted by: Norton Street | November 19, 2009 4:35 PM

Yale just released some more renderings:

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs031.snc3/11855_1175272017062_1085910074_30449756_447675_n.jpg

This image really shows the playfulness with the idea of "a fish tank". The new building will fit seemingly into the neighborhood through repetition of the phrases "more jobs", "good for New Haven", "sleek" and "innovative".

And they are planning a new addition to the Peabody Museum:
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs031.snc3/11855_1175272057063_1085910074_30449757_8031948_n.jpg

This addition will fit in to the surrounding neighborhood by playing off of the newly built SOM building (as seen above). An elaborate mechanical system will move the paw of the pshinx-like building across the street to reach for people in the SOM "fish bowl" as timed intervals throughout the day. Pedestrians will be advised not to walk here due to falling debris, while cars should be fine as long as they do not travel below the accepted speed of 60 mph on Whitney especially near the intersection of Sachem.

Architecture is not going to cease to exist if every design isn't revolutionary, innovative or eye-catching. People will always need buildings, places and spaces to inhabit. It is best to design what achieves a pleasant built environment to live in rather than design what amounts to a physical habitat consisting of disconnected personal shrines of increasingly new materials and structures. Most of the design work for the facade of the building has already been done. Whitney Avenue has, over several centuries, developed a character that is communicated through consistent patterns, proportions, materials, massing, and scale that exist on nearly every building on the street. There are certainly ways of incorporating modern building materials and interior spaces in ways that relate to the neighborhood but also set it apart. The current plan might as well be for a business school on Pluto.

http://mba.yale.edu/news_events/CMS/Articles/6723.shtml

The facade rendering on that site is terrible. As a pedestrian, I don't want to see the reflection of clouds and stupid Yalies waddling around; I want to see interesting facade details that give me something to look at while walking. If I wanted to see human activity, I'd go to a cafe. Buildings should communicate a sense of permanence, which provides the sense of security and well being. Permanence can be achieved by using heavy materials, by creating a solid base (foot), a relating middle (torso), and a defining top (head). Buildings that look like they will float away makes about as much sense as designing a frisbee like a brick because a sense of solidity wanted to be achieved. Buildings has specific purposes in our lives; they need to provide chances for certain things to occur whether you are privately interacting with the building or publicly.

I don't get it.

Posted by: JB | November 19, 2009 4:48 PM

I'm all for a new building, but why can't it be something more attractive and something that fits within the neigbhorhood? It doesn't need to have those bright blue areas, does it?

Posted by: jawbone | November 19, 2009 4:50 PM

"Your narrative has become tiresome and now is the time on Sprockets vhen ve dance!"

Posted by: angelo | November 19, 2009 5:04 PM

Nutmeg - Every time something is proposed, someone writes a "clever" comment to tell everyone they are leaving New Haven. So, if you are so unhappy, go already. Frankly, anyone who would threaten to leave a community because they do not like the style or size of a particular building probably is not that well-suited to an urban lifestyle. But, I do have one question - why do you all have to advertise your departure?

Posted by: Pedro | November 19, 2009 5:06 PM

Good lord anon, a 20 story building there? I have no problem with Yale expanding the SOM and building a new building.

I have a world of problems with the manner of which they choose to expand, treating spots that have a long-built historic fabric as empty lots with the promise that what will go there will be better than what was there before.
That was the exact same type of thinking that prevailed during Urban Renewal.

This section of town is residential, and Yale is seeking to massively increase its density. That may please the hyper-urbanists, but as Yale pushes outwards up Whitney and Prospect, they are redefining these sections of town as dense and academic, where they were not so much before.

I agree that the new campus is probably a higher and better use than what is currently there, but the precedent set is that (physical) expansion uber alles will be the order of the day, and it will come at the expense of the existing fabric of the city come hell or high water.

Posted by: jawbone | November 19, 2009 5:08 PM

The Lawn Club can lose that driveway off of Whitney Ave. Its treacherous anyway. The entrance and exit off of Humphrey is more than enough and is very gracious.
The wooden sign for the Lawn Club out on Whitney Ave. looks a little lost, like the Bishop's Daughter.

Posted by: robn | November 19, 2009 6:44 PM

DANS,

After SOM students graduate, they of course take a position as on the faculty, settle down in New Haven, join the Lawn Club, and then fight the upcoming expansion of the SOM.

Or, like Douglas Alexander Warner III, they go on to become the chair of JP Morgan Chase, invent Credit Default Swaps and utterly destroy the entire world economy.

Posted by: nfjanette | November 19, 2009 8:15 PM

what gate does my flight depart from?

Best comment of the week.

Posted by: cb | November 19, 2009 10:16 PM

@robn: "meritocracy" brought us George Bush. I'd take the 'Lord' title thanks.

Posted by: Brian V | November 19, 2009 10:30 PM

A PDD must "produce an environment of stable and desirable character … showing such unusual merit as to reflect credit upon the developer and upon the city.”
How did Anthony's parking lot demonstrate this unusual merit?
Was there an unusually meritorious fund raiser for the King that made it qualify it for a PDD?

Posted by: Norton Street | November 19, 2009 10:37 PM

Angelo,
I'm pretty sure Nutmeg's comment was about the MOS building renderings looking like an airport, not that that commenter was leaving on an airplane...

Posted by: anonymoose | November 20, 2009 12:08 AM

"the heart one of the most important downtowns in the northeast"

Maybe the appendix, or calcaneus, or sphincter, but not the heart.

The mentality that New Haven's downtown or New Haven itself is important in any sense is part of the grandiose mentality that leads people to try and place overblown, pompous, and hideously out of touch architecture on a small, homely street with small inconspicuous buildings that abuts one of the last decent residential neighborhoods in town.

THis building is part of Yale's plan to spread outwards (where else can they go?) and take over this beautiful part of town that includes many historic houses, beautiful parks, and tree lined avenues.

If this is a "great" architect's idea of what fits a block from Bradley Street, the Lawn Club, and other notable New Haven fixtures, then we should all be wise enough to know which way the wind is blowing. This is just one of many huge future impositions, expansions Yale plans as it takes over the expanse of Whitney headed out of town.

I think buying Popeye's and going down Whalley is the only other alternative. Any questions?

Posted by: anon | November 20, 2009 12:10 AM

Pedro, there are countless examples from university towns much smaller than New Haven, both in the U.S. and abroad, of high-density academic (or residential) structures fitting into traditionally-scaled, town neighborhoods. These structures can be large, but if integrated well, they ultimately add vitality, economy, presence and meaning to a place, even a very small one. They can support retail, transit, and walkability. I would take issue with the details -- the pedestrian character along the street, the transparency of the facade, the permeability of the site, or the curb cuts -- but not with density itself.

Although the structures currently on the site would certainly qualify as historic resources, they are not significant in terms of promoting walkability or mixed-use vitality. They are set far back from the walkway and have no public uses -- boilerplate corporate structures from the early automobile age which, by virtue of their automobile-oriented urban design and blandness, serve as a major "bias" barrier to walking between the old, finely-grained but dense residential neighborhood of lower Orange/State/SoHu and the Town Center.

I definitely appreciate and agree with your caution on buildings being torn down for empty lots, since that has happened far too often. Some cities have policy tools to prevent that and it would be nice if we did, too. How about an infrastructure bank?

There are deeper issues at work here than a few early 20th century buildings. If Yale and the city/state gave as much thought to fostering the creation of permanent infrastructure for civic life (i.e., streets, walkways, public transportation and the planning, visioning and dialogue necessary to create them) as they did to the creation of big new buildings (e.g., 360 State), there wouldn't be a concern here.

For example, on such a long block in the heart of such a dense urban neighborhood, why hasn't the city pushed comprehensively for the creation of a pleasant new street so that individuals in the Bradley/Pearl Street area can more easily walk or bike to Sachem without having to (or wanting to) go far out of their way? Nobody wants to walk through a parking lot every day.

Perhaps this will be an easy retrofit, but if not, then we are all missing out on a once-in-a-century opportunity to create a more beautiful, functional and permeable street grid connecting one of our most beautiful antebellum neighborhoods to our city center.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 20, 2009 12:57 AM

in my first post i meant "seamlessly", not "seemingly"

Posted by: The Gherkin | November 20, 2009 8:15 AM

Robn.

Lord Norman Foster is a member of Britain's upper house of parliament. He is therefore at the political level the equivalent of a Senator. As it is normal practice to address both Dodd and Lieberman as Senator, then he should be shown the same courtesy. Even in your two centuries old meritocracy John DeStefano is addressed as Mayor DeStefano, which to my untrained ear sounds more like Mare DeStefano. New Haveners are not very good with their pronounciation of any word beginning with 'h' either.

Returning to Lord Norman Foster, you are correct in describing him as an architect. Even Prince Charles has described his work as a carbunkle on the face of London. With this monstrosity methinks our dear 'Lord' is having a good chuckle at Yale's expense

Posted by: Pedro | November 20, 2009 9:14 AM

Anon,
I can see where you are coming from and I agree with many of those points. While I think in some ways this has less to do with the city should be more forceful in terms of advocating for walkability and density in projects that are presented, the fact is that almost every property there is owned by Yale and they also have a duty to that end. My big fear is that in the interest of more urbanizing the campus, the historic fabric of the city will feel undue pressure.
I'm all for increasing density and particularly restoring the street grid (living in Wooster square, it just kills me to see all of the fenced off, gated streets that could be connecting downtown to the area), and you are right, if Whitney avenue were properly designed as a neighborhood street rather than a high speed highway, this debate would probably not be happening.

Posted by: Kevin | November 20, 2009 11:36 AM

A couple of observations from the Plan Commission meeting.

1. The plans that Yale presented did show a pedestrian path from Pearl Street to the new building, and the Yale presenters emphasized other features to encourage people to walk to the building.

2. I found it ironic that the presenters noted that there was precedent for architectural changes on Whitney, citing the church at the corner of Bradley St. that was expanded a few years ago. That expansion is very respectful of the neighboring buildings, while Foster's design is the antithesis of contextual design.

3. Mike Morand noted that the blue in the slides (which I agree is garish) did not reflect the actual color of the proposed design.

Posted by: Ben Berkowitz | November 20, 2009 3:15 PM

This is great for New Haven.

More construction + more b-school students = better economy.

Posted by: Our Town | November 20, 2009 5:06 PM

Golly, gee, are we all too intimidated to come out and just say to Lord and Mayor this building is damn Ugh-li?

Posted by: anon | November 20, 2009 7:29 PM

A "pedestrian path" is not the same as a street. A street is a room.

Posted by: robn | November 21, 2009 9:13 AM

THEGHERKIN,

I find it difficult to respect titles of a political body which still includes hereditary members...in this respect the House of Lords is most unlike the US senate.

As for the Gherkin, I am not a big fan of it or other high rise design produced by this office. That being said they have consistently produced very elegant, well detailed modern low-rise buildings. Aside from the rather trite inclusion into the color palette of Bulldog Blue, I think that this is a nice building. With a pronounced colonnade/loggia in front, a clearly defined gateway to a cloister in the middle, I see this design as contemporary classicism.

Both of the buildings being replaced are mediocre at best.

The Site

Posted by: Yimby #651 | December 2, 2009 10:07 PM

Eastrockette wrote:
"Will there still be a public access walkway (we call it 'The Shortcut' hereabouts, and it's a crucial part of the mental 'walking map' of downtown) through from Whitney to Pearl/Lincoln and the new Romeo's cafe, thus continuing to integrate the campus with Orange and State St and beyond?"

Well well Eastrockette, how do you feel about an open gate (we call it "The Shortcut" hereabouts, and it's a crucial part of the mental "walking map" of Eastrock) through from Whitney to Everit and the new Hooker School, thus continuing to integrate the campus with Cold Spring and Livingston St and beyond?

What gate will our children depart from?
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/10/east_rock_debat.php