Yale SOM Site Plan Approved

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

by Allan Appel | May 20, 2010 8:58 am

(12) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Business/Labor/ Economic Development, Higher Ed, East Rock

In the face of a new lawsuit by one irate neighbor, and concerns about a slimmed-down pedestrian walkway, Yale earned approval for more detailed plans for its School of Management campus.

The university is in the process of leveling and clearing away two buildings at 155 and 157 Whitney Ave. to make way for a $145 million Yale School of Management campus. The plan got final aldermanic approval on March 1; Yale had to come back to the City Plan Commission Wednesday for a site plan review.

Before unanimously approving the site plan Wednesday night with no substantive changes, commissioners raised some concerns that the plan did not include enough room for passing pedestrians and bikes. Some commissioners requested further design changes to insure that the Pearl Street walkway on the north of the campus would be pedestrian and bicycle friendly.

Also at the meeting, it was revealed that the plan faces a new legal hurdle from an abutting neighbor.

Silently observing and taking notes at the meeting was Marjorie Shansky, attorney for Dr. Joseph Tagliarini. He has filed an appeal of the city’s approval of the Planned Development District (PDD) that is the basis for the School of Management project. A PDD is a powerful, contentious zoning tool used to expedite large-scale building projects.

Tagliarini’s house sits on Bradley Street near Whitney, right next to the proposed campus. He was an early and vocal voice against the proximity and scale of the project. He filed his appeal on May 5 in New Haven Superior Court.

As Yale’s Vice President for New Haven and State affairs Michael Morand prepared to showed new and more detailed renderings of the SOM’s “tailored” and substantial vegetation and façade on the south side, City Plan’s Executive Director Karyn Gilvarg asked if he still wanted to proceed in light of the pending appeal.

“The city has received notice of an appeal” of the PDD, Gilvarg announced to the room.

Did Yale wish to proceed?

Allan Appel Photo
“Yes,” replied Morand (pictured).

After Morand reprised the increased setbacks and other changes designers had made on the north and south, discussion focused primarily on Pearl Street pathway to the north. East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker, the aldermanic representative to City Plan Commission, asked why Yale had reduced the path’s width from 12 feet, which was a non-binding suggestion from City Plan, to eight feet.

Yale’s Senior Architectural Planner David Yager replied, “Eight feet seems right. Beyond that, added width encourages higher [bicycle] speeds and two bikes [traveling] together.” Yager said the judgments were made after Yale huddled with their traffic experts.

He also urged Elicker to remember that the path is primarily for pedestrians, not bicyclists.

Both Elicker and commission chair Ed Mattison (pictured), however, remained skeptical. When the overall plan for the $145 million project was approved by City Plan in the late winter, it spurred a stormy debate about the Lord Norman Foster design, the scale, and the effect on the residential community.

Tuesday night, with a lingering sense of community upset, Elicker and Mattison peppered the Yale team with questions about signage, lighting, gates, and other indicators on the Pearl Street path.

Yager clarified that the current plan featured a six foot gate arm, to discourage car entry, and then a four foot passage for bicyclists and pedestrians.

“It doesn’t feel like it’s an entrance. It feels like a closed off area,” Elicker replied.

Mattison characterized the plan as a kind of driveway on which pedestrians can walk.

Elicker reminded the Yale team that the terms or at least spirit of the PDD was that the pathway would be welcoming to local residents on foot and on bikes. Elicker asked for a discreet entryway for pedestrians and cyclists, perhaps between poles, and with signage.

Then Elicker asked if the area with more wild grasses behind the SOM building would be open to locals.

“Yes, but it’s not a public park,” replied Morand. He reminded the commissioners that one of the SOM’s main contributions will be to have turned the surface parking lot into a greensward.

Non-voting commission member and city engineer Richard Miller appeared to be losing patience. Just tell us, he asked Yale, if you were walking along Pearl Street, would the current design and signage impart “a feeling: Oh, I could walk there?”

Morand suggested that the “lived experience” of the space, that is, seeing Yale students and staffers leaving and entering, would provide visual clues. He reiterated that the new plan would be an “open campus,” like Yale College’s Cross Campus.

“You won’t need a swipe card, for example,” he said.

A slight current of distrust persisted between Morand and his colleagues and the commissioners. Elicker said the concerns he was expressing were those of other aldermen and their constituents as well.

Therefore, should these extra steps to make the Pearl Street path more pedestrian and bike friendly be requirements of passage for the site plan review? Should Yale be asked to return with more detail of signage and design?

In the end, chairman Mattison deferred to City Plan staff to work these matters out.

City Plan’s Karyn Gilvarg said it would take some time to work on these issues.

As to the potential lawsuit against the city’s approval of the SOM’s PDD, Morand said he would defer to the city. However, he expressed confidence in the outcome. “This [PDD process] has followed all the appropriate steps,” which he termed very thorough in New Haven. He said that in his view any court would find as the City Plan Commission and Board of Aldermen did. But, “it’s a free country.”

Neither Attorney Shansky nor Tagliarini returned calls by press time.

Comments

posted by: Wag on May 20, 2010 9:04am

K-THUNK!!! Rubber stamp it, baby. Yale wants…Yale gets. Unbelievable.

posted by: East Rockette on May 20, 2010 10:04am

Thanks to Justin and Ed for keeping the focus on accessibility and community-friendliness.

Questions, questions: is the “Pearl St path” exclusively for cyclists and pedestrians? Or does it allow (but discourage) vehicles as well?

If the latter, 8 feet offers nowhere for a pedestrian or a cyclist to hide if a car comes through; accident waiting to happen.

Whether it’s 8 feet or 12 feet, will there be a dedicated bike lane indicated by paint striping?

Is the path smooth and fully wheelchair accessible, with no steps to negotiate?

Does the path actually connect to a sidewalk at Pearl St, or will foot and cycle traffic debouch onto the roadway? Currently the north and (half of) the south sides of that part of Pearl St feature untended ditches and uneven verges. Will the city create and maintain proper sidewalks to connect the SoM site through to Orange St?

Will there be signposts: this way to main campus, this way to the Peabody, this way to downtown? In other words, does the new design maintain and extend the customary usage of this space as a connection between East Rock and downtown? Or does it seek to reduce it?

The building is still a monstrosity, but the new renderings are lovely. I cannot wait to picnic on that back lawn.

And I’m interested to see what happens with Dr T’s appeal.

posted by: East Rockette on May 20, 2010 10:27am

Also, is there any plan for planting along the Pearl St path? 8 ft doesn’t leave much room for greenery.

While it’s true that the previous path was probably only 8 ft wide at its narrowest point, that was for a very short stretch, and alongside a very small building. An 8 ft lane the length of the huge uninterrupted facade of the new building will feel very confined, and given that it will be fully shaded all winter, will likely be an ice and icicle trap too. I assume Yale has a maintenance plan in place?

There’s the question of visual access, too. Although it is sad to see the old buildings go, it is exhilarating to be able to glimpse the Peabody’s tower from Orange St. What a shame that the new building design couldn’t find a way to frame and exploit this sort of serendipitous (and usefully orienting) perspective.

posted by: WatchDog2 on May 20, 2010 11:29am

Does anyone remember that there was ONE alderman who voted against this PDD?

By a vote of 25 to 1, aldermen allowed the SOM plan to clear its final hurdle. They approved a zoning ordinance map amendment designating a Planned Development District (PDD) to make way for the project.

The approval came after over 11 hours of public hearings, and many meetings with neighbors who were opposed to the plan. After feedback, Yale appeased many neighbors by revising its plans. The Legislation Committee unanimously approved the plans on Feb. 11.

“Only one alderman, West Rock’s Darnell Goldson ... voted no. He said he objects to the use of a PDD to bring a “behemoth” into the neighborhood.”

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/som_plan_gets_final_ok/

posted by: anon on May 20, 2010 11:58am

Shame on Yale for reducing the ped path width. AASHTO clearly states that 10-12 feet is an absolute MINIMUM width for a path of this type and amount of use. Where did Yale’s planners go to school?

8 feet is COMPLETELY unacceptable!

posted by: pat on May 20, 2010 12:34pm

Elicker voted to put this leviathan in a residential neighborhood and now he’s focused on a 4 foot reduction in a path?
The SOM building is out of scale and out of place in a residential neighborhood.
Poor Norman Foster. He hasn’t done work at the firm bearing his name for years, and now this monster tarnishes his reputation.
A PDD in East Rock constitutes spot zoning. If it weren’t the 4th wealthiest university on earth, would it have been approved?
I wilsh the plaintiff well because as a city resident I live with the impact of this disastrous decision, even if I don’t live in the neighborhood.
This is a bad precedent.

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on May 20, 2010 3:07pm

I think it’s bee-you-tee-ful. The moonshine on the glass at night will illuminate the entire city and reduce the need for electric lights downtown.

posted by: Debra Lombard, LEED AP, EIT on May 21, 2010 12:30am

With that large flat roof area, Yale should have to turn it into a grass roof which would help insulate the very inefficient glass box design and the architects could use the filtered water from the grass roof to flush the bldg’s toilets.

What about ice and snow on that large of a flat roof area?

At nighttime and late evening in the Winter time, the light pollution coming out of that glass box building will keep all wildlife away at night time and caase unsafe, disturbing glare onto all lanes of traffic on Whitney street. It’ll look like Whalley Ave, YUCK!

posted by: Uncle Egg on May 21, 2010 9:36am

I own property two blocks from this site and couldn’t be more thrilled. Yale is a class act these days—the new School of Forestry is one of the coolest buildings in New Haven, and there’s every indication that the SOM will follow along the same lines. This will be good for the neighborhood, good for landlords and good for local businesses.

For y’all haters out there (and I’m a townie born and bred), Yale is good for the city. When Yale builds, it builds better. (Compare the new city schools with the new Yale buildings.) When it does economic development, it develops smarter. (Compare the Broadway district with the Ninth Square.)

The city shouldn’t act as a rubber stamp for Yale, but when considering Yale’s projects they should definitely recognize its long record of success.

posted by: Brian Tang on May 21, 2010 10:00pm

People in New Haven are so nuts. The building looks fine to me.

Thank you, Justin, for actually being on top of things. That this path is being treated as a sidewalk with no through route for bicyclists is disappointing. We need to start planning not just for current volumes of bicycle traffic, but 5 to 10 times the current volume. If we expect to adapt to a zero-emissions economy, New Haven’s bicycle mode share will need to be closer to 20 to 25%, which means at least 1 in 3 East Rock residents will need to use bicycles for daily trips.

Yesterday afternoon I was treated to the experience of a University of Washington professor literally laughing at me for how far behind the times Yale and New Haven are when it comes to making the connection between poor quality of life and automobile use.

posted by: Anon on May 22, 2010 11:19pm

The area to the north of the site is a dump. Regardless on your views of the architectural merits of the building, a new SOM will significantly improve the area, much of which consists of ugly surface parking lots and run down buildings. Also, there is an unremarkable 7 story building nearby so it makes no sense to complain about the scale of a four story building. As it stands there is no public path between Whitney and Orange Street—a landscaped path—at any width—is again a significant improvement over what preceded it. Pressing institutions to engage with their surrounding community can improve the New Haven, but NIMBYism run amok—which is what many of these complaints are—won’t. Finally, I would remind the Yale bashers that if Yale wasn’t in New Haven the town would look Bridgeport.

posted by: anon on May 24, 2010 4:48pm

The building will significantly improve the area. However, the city’s lack of foresight in requiring an adequate-width pathway is a major embarrassment to City Hall, and to Yale.

They are designing the pedestrian pathway as if it were located in rural Montana, not in the center of a major city.

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form