New Haven Independent

posted by: East Rockette on January 29, 2010  10:27am

All sympathy to the carpenters and engineers, but if the SoM hasn’t raised the $$, there won’t be a building job here in three months’ time.

I missed the meeting, so this question might have been answered, but: can we see a rendering of the new design with the larger setbacks and smaller courtyard? An image or two of the walking/biking path?  And can we get some views of the building in its larger context, with neighbouring buildings visible?

I still find the design jarring in its corporate slickness, but am open to persuasion. If Yale and the SoM truly believe the building will be a glorious and non-hideous asset to the neighbourhood, it might help to bring some more visual evidence to the party.

posted by: East Rockette on January 29, 2010  10:47am

Lord Foster explains the design in the YDN. Apparently it’s inspired by his own time at Yale, back in the day…

posted by: pat on January 29, 2010  12:22pm

Proponents of developments always seem to act as though time is of the essence, but there are vacant lots all around CT proving that it isn’t always so.

The neighborhood, residents of New Haven and Yale itself will live with this building a long time and we should welcome input from all community sources that look to improve the design and its impact on the neighborhood.

Yale’s steamroller tactics don’t put a friendly face its project.

Is this a good way to build support and consensus?

posted by: Scot on January 29, 2010  1:35pm

I’m 100% for the new SOM building being built there. It’s also great that it will provide an economic stimulus to the area. As a neighbor, I just really don’t like the design, and don’t think it fits in with its surroundings. I’m not as concerned with the size/scale as I am with just how it looks.

It’s clearly an unusual design for a business school, and for the neighborhood. Being unusual is fine if people are in near-unanimous agreement that it’s attractive.  I don’t get the sense that that is the case here.

“essential to the credibility for SOM within the university is having a landmark building.”
-What will it do the credibility of the SOM if a large percentage of people don’t find the building attractive? Does it need to be shockingly different to be a landmark building?

Lord Foster states “we have tried to set out a vision for a new building that expresses the forward-looking nature of the school”.  -What will this building look like in 50 or 100 years, will it still appear forward-looking? Will it age gracefully?

I’m for the SOM. I think the back of the building looks fine, its really the front that I don’t like. If this building is the only option, I’d prefer to have it over nothing at all. I just wish the design was more traditional and more in line with the residential neighborhood that it’s in.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 29, 2010  2:10pm

No one is fighting SOM from expanding, we are fighting an ugly building. No one wants construction workers out of a job, we just want them to have a job constructing a good building and not a bad one. To pose the fight as elitist, planners and neighbors against working people is ridiculous and false. The people who are opposed to the design of the building (not the need for SOM to expand) are in favor of a building or buildings with residential, town scale proportions and massing, which actually calls for more construction time on average than big boxes.
After reading East Rockette’s link to YDN, it becomes even more clear than Europeans just don’t get it. America does not have the thousands of years old civilizations that today’s European countries are based on. America does not have the dense, urban fabric of Europe’s towns and cities; we used to, but we have, unfortunately, demolished most of it. America’s towns and cities have to first build back our dense networks on urban connectivity before we can move forward into the scale of building that is being proposed for the new SOM. However, Whitney Avenue isn’t so much about density as it is about deep set backs with relatively modest structures in a sea of landscaping and open space. Whitney Ave is very much a pre-war suburban area that needs buildings with earthly materials like stone, brick, or wood on the exterior. Another Peabody-esque castle would be fine since SOM is obviously not a place of residency. But the key is massing, proportions, proper setbacks and landscaping. The proposed SOM fails on all accounts. Like central New Haven needs to get back to the level of density that allows for an urban fabric to emerge before we begin erecting massive towers *cough-360 State-cough*, Whitney Ave also needs to get to a level of pre-war suburban idealism before we can even begin thinking about bringing downtown scale to what is essentially a small town thoroughfare. There isn’t even a need for a smaller building, necessarily, what is needed is the appearance of a smaller building from street level.

posted by: Our Town on January 29, 2010  2:59pm

My gosh, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with anything Norton Street (always will be Norton St. to me) has posted, but he substantially nailed it here. Location, fine. Expand SOM, great. Unique, signature building, fantastic. Just not this monstrosity. I really don’t get why Yale is so married to this design. Please step back, Yale, and look at this. Come to your senses. Is this something your own School of Architecture would be proud of? Do not continue this blind pursuit without listening to those of us whose vision is not clouded by internal momentum. If this is built as designed, people in fifty years (if the roof doesn’t blow away in the interim) will have to marvel at those who were responsible for building it. What were they thinking?

posted by: angelo on January 29, 2010  5:55pm

Everything was fine until Our Town asked if the School of Architecture would be proud!!  Robert Stern defended the Coliseum - he’s the last person to ask what should go on Whitney.  Better than ask what the School of Architecture wants, let’s think about tearing down the School of Architecture.  (Oh, wait - they just made it “better.”)

posted by: concerned architect on January 29, 2010  6:03pm

I’ve practiced architecture for over twenty-five years and I’m well acquainted with the chorus of nimbies and naysayers who come out of the woodwork every time a project is proposed that is bold in concept and prescient in vision: they just don’t get it.  Sure, neighbors voice concerns about noise and traffic and preservationists moan the loss of existing buildings; this is normal.  But to stonewall the process because some people think the building is “ugly” is ridiculous.  If a person’s architectural taste is stuck in the nineteenth century there are plenty of landmark districts and New Urbanist communities elsewhere where people share the same retro sensibilities. 

Anyway, I need to clarify a few misperceptions:

1)  Whitney Avenue from Trumbull Street to Bishop Street is not a residential neighborhood (yes, there are a couple of multi-story apartment buildings near Humphrey Street).  It is commercial and institutional on both sides. These buildings are not modest (221 is a five-story glass office building), and they are not set back (the only buildings breaking the building line are 155 and 175).

2)  There is no “context”. To the south of SOM is a grey Carpenter-Gothic Presbyterian Church center.  To the north, several multi-scaled commercial buildings of glass, brick, stucco, stone, etc.  Across the street is the recently-renovated clapboard Anthropology department; across Sachem, the neo-Gothic/Deco Peabody, then the sixties-modern geology building and then, well, parking lots. This is an eclectic hodge-podge of styles, scales, and materials.

3)  Yale is famous for its modernist landmarks that are admired around the world.  The Kahn and Saarinen buildings are tourist destinations; the A&A has been featured on a postage stamp.  Lord Foster is a master; I have no fear that this building will become a landmark (yes, I went to the School of Architecture, and I am proud of his design).

Folks, this building is brilliant. It’s time to cut the chatter and get SOM built.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 29, 2010  7:06pm

concerned architect,
It’s true that horrible planning decisions have been steadily creeping up Whitney from downtown, but we have to make a decision as to whether we want to embrace the historic character of set backs, earthy materials, landscaping and residential proportions or if we want to embrace the wave of ugliness from downtown that has persisted for several decades.
I wonder if you have not seen all the floor plans, sections, elevations, and site plans that have been released because this building is undoubtedly a heaping pile of crap. I say this building shouldn’t be anywhere in this country, while others feel that it is just inappropriate on Whitney and would do fine in a place like Long Wharf. People entering the proposed site from Pearl Street will be greeted with a parking lot that will require serious navigating skills to get out to Whitney Ave, and it would be even more unbearable, unsafe and sensorally abusive on a bike. New Urbanism has nothing to do with this. The proposal is not good urbanism, its not appropriate urbanism; its an enormous glass box (box in the most literal sense) with insect antenna columns, an uncompromising football field spanning roof and teaching pod, egress stair tumors growing out of the facade.

posted by: Christine on January 29, 2010  10:22pm

That stretch of Whitney has looked like hell for at least the last year and a half; the blue construction barriers (or whatever they are) between the Peabody and the science parking lot are HORRENDOUS.  And that’s Yale, no?  So I envision a good five years of construction HELL once this monstrosity gets underway.
Architect Foster is extremely long in the tooth.  Worshipping at the altar of this over-the-hill fossil is suspect.  The building looks hideous, corporate, cheap, and outdated.  It makes me cringe.
Whitney will be a construction hell for an ungodly amount of time.

posted by: robn on January 30, 2010  9:28am

JH,

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 and as for parking, my understanding of the plan is that it eliminates surface parking, putting all parking under the building footprint.

posted by: Christine on January 30, 2010  11:28am

Here’s an interesting piece advocating keeping 175 Whitney instead of tearing down beautiful old stuff and building new possibly GHASTLY looking stuff——-

http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/guest-columns/2010/01/29/coe-building-keep/

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 30, 2010  12:56pm

robn,
I will entertain the possibility that the proposed building is of architectural significance and is therefore automatically appropriate for the site since massing, proportions and materiality become unimportant once it has been established that its a visionary structure(even though I disagree in reality). Let’s face it, there are people who know much more than I do, have much more experience and who feel that this is an appropriate building-fine. Like the new college for Yale, we can accept that old buildings may indeed be getting replaced by better buildings. Historic Preservation began as a movement to save old buildings that were better than the replacing new buildings. We can say that preservation is therefore unneccessary for the greater vision in the case of Yale’s new colleges and SOM. This could be the end of the discussion if we were still in 1960, however, we are now in a period of our history where much of our towns and cities have been turned into automobile habitats-almost half of downtown’s square footage is parking infrastructure, our street systems of mere car circulating devices (and bad ones, at that), and sites of great buildings are now highways, surface lots, or ugly buildings. There is no justification for knocking down buildings of any significance when there are sites all over the place being underused, vacant or unbuilt.
I believe its 175 Whitney (or 155) that has a grand entrance with a double height foyer space and a magnificently detailed oculus skylight set in iron. This type of architecture is quickly dying; there is little capital to do work of this quality at that small scale-once we knock this building down, we will never get another like it-because large budgets assume large gestures and spaces, while small spaces of highly detailed space seem like little bang for your buck nowadays to developers.
“as for parking, my understanding of the plan is that it eliminates surface parking, putting all parking under the building footprint.”
A good building could do that too…also I would like to see the main car entrance off of Pearl Street and get rid of the curb cut on Whitney all together. Pearl Street should also go all the way through to Whitney at a full street’s width, even if it isn’t opened to car traffic north of the entrance right away, because the proposed walking/bike ‘path’ is atrocious.
Also, if we start designing all our building’s footprints around parking garages, we’ll have a city that no one will ever want to live in.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 30, 2010  1:05pm

‘rotunda’ was the word I was looking for to describe 175 Whitney.

posted by: East Rockette on January 30, 2010  1:44pm

Robn, I believe you’re right about the disappearance of surface parking out the back, which will also mean farewell to the awesome snow-plow-mountains we play on all winter: Mt Everest and K2, how we will miss you! And where will the cops park on weekends?

I’m told, by someone who knows, that the greenspace that’ll replace the parking lot will be full of native plants. In this sense, the Lincoln-Bradley neighbours are getting a really sweet deal. I’d swap tarmac over the back fence for a working ecosystem/greenbelt any day.

But JH has a point about traffic.  Will all vehicle access to the site be via Pearl St, instead of a good half of it via Whitney, as is currently the case? Will that include truck traffic delivering cafe food and, I dunno, pallets of business suits and Blackberries and whatever else it is that a B school consumes? 

I would really like to know what that rear entrance will look like, and how the walk-bike path will function as part of it. Especially since there is currently no footpath along the north side of Pearl St, just a muddy rut along the Lawn Club’s fence. 

Will the public street be upgraded to cope with the inevitable increase in foot-, bike-, and combustion engine traffic along that stretch, heading to Cafe Romeo (and Nica’s beyond) for lunch? Also, how will that traffic affect Orange St (esp the pedestrian crossing there) and the notorious Lincoln/Trumbull intersection?

(Or am I wrong and main traffic access will be from Whitney?)

Any chance of a rear-view rendering that includes the parking garage, the pedestrian/bike path, and how all that fits together? And I don’t know if such a thing exists, but I would also love to see a 4-D rendering of the site in action over time: a day in the life of the proposed building, with both human and vehicle traffic mapped. Is this a tool that architects have at their disposal? I know they can map wind shear and such, but how about use patterns? That I would love to see.

Concerned Architect—it really is great to hear from an architect on the topic. Please continue to press your case! I’m sure the building has brilliant features, but it sure doesn’t look brilliant to the casual observer. Will it really be a landmark building, you reckon?

posted by: econdev on January 30, 2010  10:18pm

Jonathan:  While you have attained almost star status I would suggest you need to get a degree and go out into the world and do something real otherwise you become like the others in the Urban Design League who simply critique and putdown whatever is proposed - at some point however articulate you are and you clearly are very smart you lose credibility because you haven’t really done much yet - talk is cheap.  Go design or build a building and actually get it it built - better yet work in a community setting with real people and develop something beautiful that “works”.  Until than you should think twice about how real your observations are. Sorry - I admire your enthusiasm, youth and activism but at some point one needs to put up or shut up.

posted by: robn on January 31, 2010  11:17am

JH,

You’re unnecessarily blurring a lot of issues together, so let me pull them apart for you.

Firstly, the historic preservation litmus test…
1) Is the existing building exceptional?
2) If the existing building isn’t exceptional, is it part of an exceptional context that would be harmed its removal?
In my opinion, the answer to both questions is NO.

This brings you to the question of whether the existing buildings are more useful to Yale than the proposed and their answer is NO.

This brings you to your question of “why this site”; clearly it because the site is big enough, contiguous with Yale campus and adjacent to a popular graduate student neighborhood.

Thus you’re provided with justification; the existing building is neither significant nor useful and the land suites the new use.

So we’re left with the question of whether the proposed design is, in and of itself, good. I say YES, you say NO.

posted by: robn on January 31, 2010  11:27am

EASTROCKETTE,

There will be a parking entrance curb cut to the right side of the Whitney facade. The Pearl St entrance is currently used by trucks and cars…I don’t know if it will still exist but if it does logic states that unless people just change their commuting habits the current traffic will stay about the same…

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 31, 2010  1:51pm

robn,
That was the 1960s litmus test, it is out dated. It does not take into account the massive destruction that has been done to American cities and towns, especially north eastern post industrial cities and towns.
“clearly it because the site is big enough”
Any site is big enough if you demolish enough buildings. I would really suggest you go look at 175 Whitney, it’s a great building.
We have to see if there are other appropriate sites first. Is there a smaller site closer to or in downtown that could take a tall building? I find it hard to believe that this is the only site that accomplishes the things you’ve listed.
Have you seen all the released floor plans, site plan, sections and elevations? This building is a nightmare.

Econdev,
Good point. I along with the Urban Design League are aware of the enormous difficulties architects have due to uncontrollable limitations that are imposed upon them. The UDL tries to address those fundamental issues, but that is a much larger, more time consuming battle that is slow-going. There simply are not enough resources to do everything at once, so what ends up happening is that individual projects, which are often made worse by zoning, codes and other requirements, are protested and fought against in lieu of only dedicating time and energy to the overall problem that faces architects. However, if the focus was only on zoning, codes, etc, then during the years worth of fighting that would take, numerous awful buildings would be built to the existing bad zoning and code requirements, to the detriment of this old New England city.
As far as your comments about me not practicing, you are exactly right. I do not know what I’m talking about-no one should take my word as gospel. I am not a prefessional, I am at the early stages of a professional education. I am aware of the issues that face practicing architects, and I am sympathetic to that and I do not wish to make my opinions sound like I am against architects because I am really against the hijacking of the planning profession, which has forced architecture to become boxed in and given a false sense of creativity that often goes awry. Planning has been taken over by lawyers and governments, when it should be in the hands of architects and the public.
I do not try to misrepresent myself as an authority. I am part of the public and my objections are from that perspective, what seems confusing is that I use language that may make it sound like I know what I’m talking about. My opinions are often that of the general public, just with some added vocabulary that most people do not possess to express their opinions on things like design, architecture and planning.
The main reason I post here is to get feedback and critiques since my professors are often difficult to schedule meetings with. The things I talk about on here are the exact things I talk about in my classes.
However, to characterize my existence as cheap talking is incorrect. The time I spend commenting is nothing compared to what I do ‘in the real world’ in terms of volunteering my time on construction sites of real houses that real families live in,  volunteering my time at community meetings across the city and the time I’ve spent designing alternatives to proposed plans for the general public to look at and to understand their true options and not just what is sold to them by the city or developers or whoever.
To characterize UDL’s entire existence as to get in the way of architects and buildings they deem ugly is incorrect and shows a lack of understanding as to what they actually do.

The proposal right now has an entrance off Whitney and one off Pearl. The Pearl Street entrance deadends in a parking lot with a series of stairs and ramps that will make it unpleasant to navigate on foot or on bike. The Whitney ave entrance is extremely close to the existing church and slopes down to a loading dock and parking garage entrances, it will most likely be the main entrance-this is also the portion that abutts the Bradley Street houses.

posted by: robn on January 31, 2010  6:10pm

“That was the 1960s litmus test, it is out dated. It does not take into account the massive destruction that has been done to Amprincipalsd towns, especially north eastern post industrial cities and towns.JONATHANHOPKINS

JH,

Better hit the books kid. The destruction of Penn Station in 1964 spawned the modern principals of historic preservation and those principals still stand.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 31, 2010  11:41pm

Robn,
Yes, it was the litmus test that came out of the 1960s (1964 is more exact, thanks). And it has stood until now, which is what I’m disagreeing with. It has become outdated, and needs to be revisited. Massive demolition of urban centers, their core more precisely, was prevalent until the late 70s, I think it was the ‘oil crisis’ that slowed things down. Then, throughout the 80s and early 90s, there was another wave of neighborhood demolition in urban areas that occurred mostly outside of the urban core, which was a result of the enormous decay of large numbers of working class, work force housing that had either become abandoned, unaffordable for owners to fix up, burned or a combination of those things. What we are left with are enormous holes in our urban fabric that needs to be rebuilt before we try to capture what many European countries have been able to do in their urban centers and urban areas in terms of experimenting with new building forms, new scales, new principles, etc. Perhaps we are capable of rebuilding what needs to be rebuilt while simultaneously exploring new forms, principles whatever in urban design, but I doubt it. I worry that if we try to be experimental with America’s existing broken built environment, unpredictable things will happen. It seems better to explore urban infill, until growth through demolition becomes necessary. It’s also entirely possible that I’m attaching an ‘urban renewal’ sticker to SOM in a way that is unfair and maybe even inaccurate because of my dislike for the appearance of the proposed building. If indeed it is a bias, it’s because even in my relatively short lifetime I’ve seen many mass demolition projects and new buildings that have not performed adequately for the common good. I have also yet to hear any positives about this specific building aside from it being a landmark building because of who designed it. It seems like more of an exploration of new structural techniques than anything else.

“For a long time, trained architects have required of themselves that they be Original, and of their buildings that they be Important. The former has created neighborhoods without unity or texture, where every building calls for separate attention, like giraffes and rhinoceri at the zoo. The latter, a denial of freedom of speech to buildings has made them tongue-tied, unable to speak for fear of not speaking Importantly, and consequently not very interesting to the people who are trying to inhabit them. If, I believe, their architects relaxed a little, and let their buildings be gentle or whimsical or shyly charming or ingratiating…then people’s interest in them might increase.”

posted by: Pedro on February 1, 2010  10:27am

East Rockette-

The green space towards the back is going to be pretty substantial, but the space along the back of Bradley is going to be pretty minimal. I believe that the building height will be taller than the overall setback (at that point it’s going to be about 80 feet high, but only 38-63 feet from the property lines.

As for parking and traffic, 3 driveways are going to be consolidated to 1, at the south end of the property (so much of the setback on the south side will be taken up by driveway and not greenery). The pearl street entrance will turn into a walking/bike path along the north end of the property.

The parking garage is actually going to consist of 186 parking spaces BELOW the building in 2 levels of underground parking, so there will be no visible parking or loading docks on the building.

To give you a sense of the scale of the building, it’s as tall as the Peabody museum tower, and (before the setbacks were changed) about 400 feet wide, or half the width of the New Haven Green. This is going to be a huge building.

posted by: East Rockette on February 1, 2010  12:09pm

Pedro and Robn, ta for clarifications. Wowza. That is a monster of a building. I feel for the people on the Bradley side of things. The only possible upside is that it won’t block their sunshine.

JH: “The Pearl Street entrance dead-ends in a parking lot with a series of stairs and ramps that will make it unpleasant to navigate on foot or on bike.”

That sounds mega-unfriendly, not just for bikes but also strollers and wheelchairs and anyone who’s not fleet of foot. But anything less than a properly graded, appropriately wide path is surely not ADA-compliant? Can we get some eminent domain going and reserve a continuation of Pearl St through to Whitney, dedicated to non-car traffic?

I really do think that on this point alone, the aldermen would be right to demur. That accessway between Pearl and Whitney is a classic example of a path of desire (see pictures here, and a sweet video here).  As such, it deserves to be not merely integrated into the plan for the site in an “OK, whatever” sort of way way, but emphatically and actively prioritised and improved upon.

Formalized paths such as these are an integral part of the psychogeography of a city, especially college towns. Given Lord Foster’s warm reminiscences about his time at Yale, I’m assuming that’s part of the life of the place that his design hopes to preserve and encourage?

Also, given the constant trumpeting of the building’s green credentials, I’m assuming that the plan includes a massive bike-rack/bike-shed? The aldermen surely wouldn’t sign off on a design that neglected this crucial amenity.

And channelling the Lorax, who speaks for the trees? The monumental gingko out the front? The cherries? The whimsical truffula-like yew? Will the street trees along Whitney remain unmolested?

Given: that the site is probably an appropriate one for the SoM and that construction is probably inevitable, and that it will probably look something like the proposed design (hmm, no chance of reverting to the very very first design, which was apparently not nearly as ugly? Did those sketches ever go public?).

But good lord, make it work, people. Make it work for the people—all of us. Please!

posted by: robn on February 1, 2010  2:14pm

JH,

Foster is essentially proposing a classically organized building articulated with modern detailing. It, like some others on the block are large, bilaterally symmetrical buildings with pronounced center entrances and pronounced cornices, and many of them sit close to the street almost filling their lots. Nevertheless, the immediate Whitney Ave context includes many different attitudes about siting and style. You can admit it if you just don’t like the style but please spare us the cyclical arguments about continuity of urban fabric because it doesn’t exist on Whitney.

I’m on board with many great aspects of New Urbanism, including sensitivity to scale and detailing, however, I, unlike you, don’t think that these are incompatible with contemporary construction and design.

posted by: East Rockette on February 1, 2010  3:53pm

Robn, you know I love you but I’m going to beg to differ - both with you and with Concerned Architect - on the question of context and continuity.

There is a context here, and it’s remarkably continuous. I just travelled down Prospect and up Sachem. All the way: wood and brick, including the new Forestry and Ecology buildings. Even the crappy old SoM on the corner of Prospect and Sachem is in the same palette, dark and warm. The new colleges to be built opposite it, classic college architecture.  Along Sachem, more red brick and a glimpse to the right down Hillhouse Ave.

Sitting at the corner of Sachem and Whitney, the red-brown castle-like Peabody sits to my left, like a squared-off East Rock itself; the restored Anthro building in gold clapboards to my right; and in front of me, atop a grassy bank, the doomed buildings—also warm, bricky, stocky, and flanked by trees. 

The scale is continous, the palette warm, the setting cosy. Red brick against the blue New England winter sky is an excellent combination, and in summer, it retreats and mimics tree bark amidst the foliage.

At Sachem and Whitney, if I turn right I pass the rolling gardens of the President’s House, the New Haven Historical Society Museum, and then enter the collegey-ecclesiastical-brownstoney precinct of Temple St. Or (on foot at least) I can head down Whitney Ave to the carefully restored and remagined Audubon area.

If I turn left, I pass a couple of admittedly crappy square office buildings on the east side of Whitney, but the eye is surprisingly good at overlooking those and leaping to the brick apartment building on the corner of Humphrey (meanwhile, the mind imagines a future in which they’re bowled over and replaced with something nicer by Yale). On the left, an unprepossessing carpark, also soon to be replaced by new buildings.

Turn right at Humphrey and you’re in a street of gracious old houses, brick and clapboard. Go around the block, turn right at the red-brown church and head down Orange St. More brownstones, more big old houses. Hang a right at the new Cafe Romeo into Pearl St: same style, same vibe, nice glimpse of the mass of the Lawn Club (nice pool, wish we could all join). Then hang a left down Lincoln to Trumbull and admire two blocks of beautiful old houses, some of them listed.

At the intersection there you can see the Little Theatre ahead, and a fine set of rowhouses to your left. Turn right onto Trumbull and drive past the John Slade Ely Gallery, and then turn right at soon-to-be-Fashionista Corner, back onto Whitney and up to the SoM site again. As you climb the short rise past the Presbyterian Church and its magnificent copper beech, you see the copper leaves echoed in the tower of the Peabody, and beyond, in East Rock itself.

There is a context here, and it’s a continuously human-scale one, with an emphasis on natural materials, classical shapes, and a warm stone palette. By all means argue that what it needs, aesthetically speaking, is thus precisely the opposite—but you can’t say there isn’t a dominant “vibe” and that this design runs absolutely counter to it.

posted by: concerned architect on February 1, 2010  5:42pm

I would like to respond to Mr. Hopkins comments to my earlier post. No, I don’t want to see set backs, (urban buildings are not set back), earthy materials (bricks were fine in the Roman days), landscaping (you mean the trees and grass around the neighboring buildings?), residential proportions (university buildings shouldn’t look like houses). I want to see something spectacular, bold, fantastic, not some run-of-the-mill, hokey, ho-hum pile commensurate with the aesthetic sensibilities of those contextually-minded people who can only look backward to see forward. 

When Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building was completed in 1957 its sleek modernist profile was striking within the context of the surrounding nondescript masonry buildings along Park Avenue.  Today, to the unknowing eye, Seagram appears as just another glass box among many.  The vitality of a city resides in its variety, not its uniformity. Uniformity and ubiquity lead to dullness.  Parts of New Haven, and Yale in particular, maintain an exquisite balance of styles, scales, colors, and details.  Stand where Cross Campus hits Wall Street, and take in the view of neo-Classical Commons, Modernist Beinecke, and neo-Gothic Berkeley and Law School. The balance here is wonderful.

I followed the forum on the new colleges on the Yale Daily several months back, and there the contributors were generally taking quite the contrary position to this forum: that the design was too conservative, uninspired, dull.  Personally, I think the design is spot on for exactly the same reason I support SOM.  Its brick-and-stone Gothic-like style is a powerful foil to the buildings that surround it, especially the Whale. That area of Prospect Street has the potential to be a wonderful mixture of styles, textures, and scales, to which the new colleges will contribute. (Frankly, I would have preferred that Yale keep Hammond Hall and Mudd Library, since I think they would have provided richness to the mix).

SOM is going to be a great building, no doubt about it.  It in no way is going to disrupt its non-context on Whitney.  It will be the context.  It’s worth remembering that when the Eiffel Tower went up in 1889, it was for the most part universally hated and condemned for ruining Paris.  Imagine that.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on February 1, 2010  11:26pm

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs142.snc3/16955_1218016245641_1085910074_30540674_1865385_n.jpg

Whitney Ave, in Whitneyville, is a small town Main Street with modest houses leading to mixed use retail, apartment and office buildings all with a similar size. As Whitney approaches the lake, the buildings disappear and it essentially becomes a rural, scenic road. However, it quickly turns into an urban avenue with orthogonally intersecting side streets, ordered street streets, straight sidewalks, straight or symmetrical walkways and it remains straight until it terminates at Grove. The buildings that line the vast majority of this section are large houses with deep setbacks (as compared to setbacks on adjacent streets), earthy materials, human derived proportions and landscaping (bushes, flowers, mulch, etc.).
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs174.snc3/20155_1226329813475_1085910074_30557198_2310292_n.jpg
Beginning at Edwards or Humphrey, Whitney begins to be occupied by larger buildings of programs ranging from institutional to civic. The set backs begin shortening as well. At Bradley, a neighborhood center begins to emerge with small shops, apartments and small offices. After Trumbull, an urban center leads us into the urban core of downtown-Church Street.
The proposal is to be located in a transitional space between the suburban/general urban zone and the neighborhood center/urban center zone.
Either the proposed building is appropriate and its location is not, or the location is appropriate and the building is not. The proposed building, in its current state, does not fit with the transect zone that the site is located in.
This is mostly due to the facade of the proposed building, and a little to do with the overall size. If the building were to pull a 180, there would be something to talk about in terms of its more appropriate presence on the street.
http://mba.yale.edu/new_campus/rear_view_image.shtml

To me, the proposed front facade looks too top heavy, like it is leaning forward, reminiscent of a tidal wave.
http://mba.yale.edu/new_campus/street_view_image.shtml

http://www.worldwidewriters.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/tidalwave1.jpg

The rear elevation is more relaxed and comfortable on the site. The base seems very much planted in the ground and the building steps back as it progesses vertically, reminiscent of a waterfall:
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs194.snc3/20155_1226329573469_1085910074_30557197_5016860_n.jpg

Whether or not those are good examples, I think the building is misplaced, incorrectly scaled and proportioned and at the very least, the facades are backwards.