Next Vlock House Must Fit Block’s Design

This is ridiculous. The Columbus House is providing housing for 3 families. The YSOA is designing and building the houses at no cost to the city. WHY does it have to look like every other house on the block? The city is crying out for affordable housing ... why put design stipulations on the project at THIS stage? The homes that the Vlock project build are beautiful, energy efficient, unique, and families are proud to own or rent them. They bring more than bodies to a neighborhood. They bring people who have an appreciation for their home because #1 it is new, #2 it is one of a kind, and #3 it is theirs!!! The stipulations put forth by zoning are without foundation - there is no way this NEW HOME can screw up the neighborhood. And the concens if the group from the management team are unfounded - they ask the same questions every time and get the same answer every time. The CMT is not concerned about affordability or design ... it's about CONTROL. C'mon Hill South - we can do better than that. Give some residents a chance to have something nice. Help get some families off the street. Give some kids a home!!! And stop being a bully!

It's hard to see how this doesn't wreck the whole project, given the late date of the requirement.

The deal here is that super-affordable housing gets built at no cost to the city, and in return the architecture students get valuable experience in design and building. If you take away the design part and have the CMT specify the design, then what is left of the deal?

Steve Fontana's comment that they are getting the house for $1000 and can "afford to do something nice" is way off base. The charitable contribution is running from the Vlock program to the city, not the other way around, he has his story backwards. Look, if Fontana can find a private developer who will pay more for the lot, then build a beautiful new Queen Anne house, and then turn it over to Columbus House to rent it out to the formerly homeless, then he should go for it! But of course he can't.

If the deal falls apart, everyone loses, most especially the poor tenants who would have been able to live here.

This is an example of hitting a gift horse in the mouth. Horrible, Perhaps the ones that made the stipulations should design and build the project and see how far they get.

Maybe it's late in the game to make these requirements, but I totally understand the concern. Look at the monstrosity that the School of Management plopped down across the street from the Peabody. This is a great program, but students are trying to stand out and be innovative. That doesn't always translate into improving the aesthetic of the neighborhood.

"bracketed bargeboards along gable rakes"

Technical terms in the building trades are so cool.

Lord Foster's SOM building on Whitney Avenue, could have been a worse, I do agree it looks like an airport, however a group of people decided they wanted parking, a futuristic look, modern, glass, etc. Try giving the students a list of criteria, and let them design and build for example: outside green or garden space, energy efficiency, parking, complimentary design to fit in to the neighborhood. Try to learn how to communicate criteria, and ASK to be a part of the decision making final design, PLEASE DONT TELL SOMEONE WHAT TO DESIGN OR HOW TO DESIGN.
Instead try to keep an open mind, you might learn from them.

What is wrong with this city's officials? That is a great gift by Yale and the architecture students are using it as a canvas for creativity. That house looks really cool! Let them do what they want.

The recent building project houses have been beautiful, and have hardly been detrimental to the neighborhood. Is this not partly a question of NIMBY with the homeless population?

"elements: a steeply pitched gable roof with exposed rafter ends; bracketed bargeboards along gable rakes; and porches with turned posts and balusters and spindle work."

With regard to the desired design elements, it would be interesting to know if any of the parties involved have analyzed the existing houses built in that style to understand the type and cost of maintenance required to keep the units in good condition over decades of aging. A simple walk down the block of any area in the city with such houses reveals the many challenges of the elements wearing away paint and wood. I would hope for a modern approach to the design and selection of construction materials that incorporates more weather-resistant approaches to whatever design elements are involved to minimize cost and effort of long term maintenance.

Most troubling to me is a city administration that is struggling to manage relationships neighborhoods, non-profits, and Yale volunteers, each of which city hall has long standing relationships with. That is probably the single most important job of a city administration. Sounds like legitimate concerns all the way around. Looks like the city blew it on figuring out how to move forward. Certainly sends a poor signal to non-profit and for-profit developers on the city's competence.

Good chance for the Yale students to learn about contextual reality and let go of their egos for a change. The other projects make neighbors feel like second class citizens.Why shouldn't they get gentrified shangri-las? Make a better block, not a signature object that denigrates the block.

The design requirement obviously has provoked controversy. Here is an idea I hope will be less contentious. I think the School of Architecture should agree to make the designs of buildings constructed under the program available to other developers at no charge. This would be particularly useful for folks trying to develop in-fill housing.

Brewski and Susan, I live two blocks from SOM - it really does stick out like a sore thumb. In contrast, the nearby 1954 Environmental Sciences Building (next to the Peabody Museum) does a much better job of respecting its neighbors, even though it is obviously a 21st century building.

We need much more of these efforts and Yale owes us big time. I want more of their schools' involvement with helping the city---architecture, public health, medical, law, management, etc. These little houses are just the start. It's long past time for Yale Corp. to reciprocate our generosity. New Haven Taxpayers unite against higher property taxes when Yale and the state should kick in. Urn and I promise not to raise property taxes except for the wealthy here. NO MORE FREE LUNCH for the obscenely rich in New Haven. Urge Justin to make this promise as well. Debate coming up in Westville May 15 at local school.

Affordable New Housing Starts in New Haven? The 'dickens' you say!
See -- it can be done -- and it seems that 'this program' is the only one doing it.

ElmcityYale -- if you are going to buy an 'older' home, their is going to be 'upkeep'.
Just because materials are 'older' doesn't necessarily make them 'obsolete'.

You know -- the wooden siding on my 125 year old Victorian is original, as are the floors, as are the oak moldings....
It's all in good shape and I wouldn't trade that for the world!

The 'investment vehicle' that real estate has become is the real culprit here, not dedicated home-owners, or 'older building materials'!

Hmmm...

One of the complaints I see in the comments on just about every building project in this city is how the new building or remodel doesn't fit the city's look. There are always comments about how the architect and designers could get the same effect while keeping the integrity of the neighborhood. Want to know why they do that? One reason is because in their first year they are taught to design whatever they want as a stand-alone project and not even think about how it fits in with the neighborhood. I would think if you really want to give young budding architects a challenge tell them to build the old style houses to keep the look and feel but with new technologies and amenities.

Looking at them by themselves, most of those houses are great. Look at them in their surroundings and they stick out like a scar. And who wants to live in a scar no matter how affordable?

I agree with Hill Resident...The vanity is disgusting. Lives are being helped!!!

Hmmmmm,

This is a 'minor impact' project with a 'neighborhood' end-user.

While I think the 'design' could use some 'sprucing', I also think nobody is building three family victorian row houses these days. I also think the 'complaints' you hear from the 'peanut gallery' generally concern multis-million dollar developmentss, -- huge structures that ,have absolutely nothing to do with their surroundings in both design and scale.

The other story that comes to mind is the 'problems' the new owner of the old Fuel is having remodeling his 'existing, non-historic, unsympathetic addition'.

Maybe they could rename this The [Howard] Roark Project.

GP,

We need to build the Ayn Rand Pavillion first, and maybe a malt shop called 'Fountainhead Soda'.

Annie's comment exemplifies New Haven's attitude toward so much: if we cannot all live in well-designed homes, no one should live in a well-designed home. So long as we are all poor beggars, we shall wallow happily in our poverty.

@Bill Saunders, you got it! lol maybe on the east side of 360 State, Do you think I might have insulted The Independents bloggers that I felt I needed to add [Howard] ? This is an interesting debate, a small group comes up with a nice plan to help and here comes design by committee to "help."

I love authentic historic architecture. I greatly DIS-like historic reproduction houses, just as much as I dislike most modern alterations of historic buildings. I ALSO dislike modern architectural ego-trips placed in historic neighborhoods. So the requirement that the house must be a historic reproduction, i.e. "The house must be in the Queen Anne Style. It must incorporate the following elements…" etc. is ridiculous. For examples of houses that are thoroughly modern—yet which incorporate traditional detailing that makes them compatible with the surrounding 19th century buildings—check out nos. 149-165 Hallock AVENUE: all built c. 2003. Or check out the brick townhouses nos. 381-401 Temple St: built in 1987. How about simply requiring that the houses incorporate "architectural detailing"? It's the cold slabs of plastic, glass, concrete etc. with NO detailing that has dehumanized so much modern architecture. Contrasting colors, bits of artistically arranged ornamentation, etc. are the things that make people smile when then walk past such a building.

GP,

No Rand fan here, and even had to google your reference to 'catch the joke'!

However, It was certainly a comment deserving of being 'fleshed out'. (smiley face)

@ 1644

Thank you.

It is truly heartening to see a neighborhood that values its history and its appearance and rejects attempts to dilute the longstanding prevailing style of its architecture. We need you folks over here at 95 - 97 Howe Street.

The National Park Service guidelines for new buildings in historic settings is helpful - note especially bullet point #5: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/new-construction.htm

"New construction should also be distinct from the old and must not attempt to replicate historic buildings elsewhere on site and to avoid creating a false sense of historic development."

I fall into the camp of folks who think these late-decided criteria are both overly restrictive and absurd.

I own one of the Vlock homes in the West River neighborhood and it's a source of pride for me that I have a unique and beautiful piece of property. In fact, I would not have bought this home if it was designed to match the historic two and three family homes in my neighborhood. In the 10 years I've been there, I've managed to improve the property, and have truly set roots in my community. I think the "funky" designs the students produce add interest and texture to the neighborhood, and I love walking around to see the latest build. Further, having read up about the program and their past projects, I know that the students are required to consider the neighborhood context and design to match certain criteria like orientation, size, scale, and position on the block; these homes, while different, are not arbitrarily created and plopped down into vacant lots.

All this being said, I respect the community's desire to influence the project but think these conversations should have been held a year or more ago. If I were working on the project, I'd quickly look for a different site and come back to the Hill for summer 2020 rather than try to shoehorn the existing (no doubt, modern) designs into some quasi-historical mold - I can't imagine that would look good, if that's what we're concerned about!