I've seen several neighborhood threads go off-topic by arguing about whether the modern buildings being built contrast too much with the historic fabric. I thought we should have a thread where the proponents of traditional building and proponents of modernist buildings can post examples of what they think is a good infill design.  I will start by posting a picture of a townhouse under construction now in the DePaul area  of Chicago:

 

 

Good topic.

 

However, the picture alone doesn't tell the full story.  If you list the address of that building we can look at it in relation to other structures on the street.

 

This is a great idea, not sure why one of us hasn't made it when that discussion comes up as I've been a part of it in several threads and it makes sense to have a place to discuss it.

 

That part of Chicago sees a lot of really high quality traditional infill which ends up looking absolutely fantastic. Actual limestone detailing, high quality brick, woodwork that captivates you for hours. They're absolutely gorgeous properties that serve to really heighten the traditional nature of the streets they're on.

 

But then you get stuff like the towers in River North that are trying to look vaguely like 1920s/30s/40s towers but instead use precast concrete in place of stone and detailing that makes me want to cry. Like faux lintels not aligning with their windows below. It makes me cringe whenever something like the Elysian is built. It looks and feels awful because it's cheaply done faux old.

 

I'm excited to see some of the projects people bring up and use as examples for or in favor of faux historic architecture.

jmicha I cannot believe you thought of the Elysian!  That was the first building that came to my mind as well.  The interior is beautiful, but its as if the builder tried too hard.

 

I'm a love of prewar buildings right up to mid century buildings.  Things built in the 60s or later or (tract) homes that have a garage as the focal point are hideous to me!

I think the Elysian kind of summarizes what's wrong with most faux old buildings. It tried so hard but just made all the wrong choices and ended up looking ridiculous. Had they just tried a little less to make it faux old looking it could have turned out as a decent example of mixing old and new. But as it is it just looks like a confused building with an upside down garbage bin on top.

How about this Federalist-style home being built at West 32nd and Clinton in Cleveland's Ohio City neighborhood? Thanks to Clueless for the great pic of a beautiful new house in an old style!

 

This home has been built in the Mt auburn neighborhood. It does a good job of blending with the Italianate detached townhome architecture you see in neighborhoods all over Cincinnati. and I think with a few minor changes is something I would build in my own neighborhood , but with a basement and some better brackets on the front and 2 over2 windows

For reference that is 2285 Loth Street for anyone interested.

it really depends on the immediate neighborhood and even down to the lot and adjacent buildings to me.

 

usually i like to see more of a mix, even in historic neighborhoods. tremont is a great example of what i mean.

This is new construction, however its new construction in a new "old neighborhood" development. called Village of West Clay in Indiana. Some of the stuff like this is almost spot on. My only critique is the lack of dormers on the front of the mansard roofline, but the roof execution. These kind of 'old town neighborhoods are being developed out in suburbia where 'allegedly' you have that hoem town feel, your kids can ride their bikes to the "New town square" and you have great schools, and security because many of these kind of developments are gated.

 

You could drop something like this in just about any historic neighborhood but the bigger question in my mind is there are so many real houses out there that are endangered, do new developments like West Clay hurt preservation efforts or help them. Does a 2-3 million dollar "faux Victorian' do anything to help preservation? Now it may 'inspire' some who would look at this and say I can restore the real thing for a lot less, or does this cheapen historic preservation overall? thoughts?

This is new construction, however its new construction in a new "old neighborhood" development. called Village of West Clay in Indiana. Some of the stuff like this is almost spot on. My only critique is the lack of dormers on the front of the mansard roofline, but the roof execution. These kind of 'old town neighborhoods are being developed out in suburbia where 'allegedly' you have that hoem town feel, your kids can ride their bikes to the "New town square" and you have great schools, and security because many of these kind of developments are gated.

 

You could drop something like this in just about any historic neighborhood but the bigger question in my mind is there are so many real houses out there that are endangered, do new developments like West Clay hurt preservation efforts or help them. Does a 2-3 million dollar "faux Victorian' do anything to help preservation? Now it may 'inspire' some who would look at this and say I can restore the real thing for a lot less, or does this cheapen historic preservation overall? thoughts?

 

RestorationConsultant[/member]  Do you have a picture of the entire neighborhood or address so we can look on street view?

 

Looking at the house is one thing, but look at how it fits in with the Architectural integrity of the neighborhood is another.

The Loth Street house is a bit low to the ground, and having the cornice sitting right on top of the second floor windows is not quite right, but it's at least decent.  An important thing to note about buildings like this (or any really) is that if you keep the shape simple, in this case it's a perfectly rectangular shoe box, then there's more money available for details and finishes.  In this day and age that unfortunately means either pocketing the difference or diverting those resources to the interior, but it's one reason older row houses could go all out on an elaborate facade, especially with zero clearance side walls that need no detailing or windows at all.  Anyway, I'd rather see a simpler form like this that can be done with a little more sophistication and quality than something that needs to be cheapened because the framing, flashing, and foundations are so much more complicated. 

I don't have that address, its an entire neighborhood of "new/old" stuff out in suburbia in a former cornfield. YOU can google Villages of West Clay and likely get an address. Their town square is interesting, they even have an  new art deco CVS store. Reminds me of Disneyland

I'll help.

 

Coordinates: 39.974195, -86.205120

Some of the buildings are fine in that development but the thing as a whole makes me really uncomfortable. These overly planned, faux-historic neighborhoods, even though attractive at times, feel way too fake and Stepford Wives-esque. Seaside did the same thing to me. It's adorable, cute, well done, well detailed, etc. but I want no part of it ever. If these were infill though in a neighborhood that was actually old I'd applaud the developer of them. Because they do appear to be well-crafted and the detailing is accurate to the style from the quick glance I had at this neighborhood.

Some of the buildings are fine in that development but the thing as a whole makes me really uncomfortable. These overly planned, faux-historic neighborhoods, even though attractive at times, feel way too fake and Stepford Wives-esque. Seaside did the same thing to me. It's adorable, cute, well done, well detailed, etc. but I want no part of it ever. If these were infill though in a neighborhood that was actually old I'd applaud the developer of them. Because they do appear to be well-crafted and the detailing is accurate to the style from the quick glance I had at this neighborhood.

 

I don't like any of it.  It reminds me of houses/building on our studio lot.  the front look like a real house, but the innards and rear exterior are faux!  They even built "boarded up" windows (at 2578 congress street & 2583 Grafton St). Similar to what you might find on brownstones in my neighborhood.  UGH

 

This is why you have to look at the neighborhood as a whole, not just one house.

 

Granted, it is no secret that I love prewar buildings and hate tract home.  Looking at the entire development, IMO, it's cheap crap.

It may not be comparable to an actual historic neighborhood, but if you have to live in the suburbs, would you rather have that or the standard suburban crap development of today? 

It may not be comparable to an actual historic neighborhood, but if you have to live in the suburbs, would you rather have that or the standard suburban crap development of today? 

 

Option C.  Neither!  If the outsides are this bad, I can only imagine how bland the insides are!  I grew up in a 1920 tudor home.  I can't deal with this "new old" crap.

OK how about this: This was constructed by a Preservationist friend of mine in Northern California for his country house restoration. He also owns the famed "Russian Embassy" house in San Francisco.

 

New Construction, but architectural salvage from demolished property  (legally rescued pre demo) was integrated into the structure.  This appears as a classic carriage house. I actually plan on doing something very similar on an upcoming restoration project to go with a large second empire mansion.

 

OK how about this: This was constructed by a Preservationist friend of mine in Northern California for his country house restoration. He also owns the famed "Russian Embassy" house in San Francisco.

 

New Construction, but architectural salvage from demolished property  (legally rescued pre demo) was integrated into the structure.  This appears as a classic carriage house. I actually plan on doing something very similar on an upcoming restoration project to go with a large second empire mansion.

 

 

What neighborhood, it's very hard to make a determination with solely an exterior pic.  A restoration is internal and external.  For me, in order to put the item discussed into proper context, it would be nice to see the surroundings as well as interior shots.  I hope that makes sense.

This sits on a large estate lot so it doesn't have a "neighborhood context". However it strikes me as something that would easily integrate in to most Victorian era neighborhood settings. I have not seen the inside of it but I understand the interior is mostly salvaged materials.

I do not like faux-antique buildings as historic infill in historic neighborhoods.  I believe new houses/buildings should follow a form-based code, so that they remain in proportion with their context, but IMO, they should be easily distinguishable as new/infill.

Want to also remind people of this building in Short North, Columbus which belongs in Cincinnati:

 

http://woodcompanies.com/sites/default/files/styles/main-image-location/public/main-images/location-images/Front.jpg?itok=RwE17ZFq

 

I've seen several neighborhood threads go off-topic by arguing about whether the modern buildings being built contrast too much with the historic fabric. I thought we should have a thread where the proponents of traditional building and proponents of modernist buildings can post examples of what they think is a good infill design.  I will start by posting a picture of a townhouse under construction now in the DePaul area  of Chicago:

 

 

 

Love that building.  Thanks for posting it and starting this thread.  To me, that isn't faux-historic or "trying to look old"; it's just a well executed design that is carried throughout the structure.  A lot of those "old" architectural details are things that we should have never moved away from, aesthetically speaking.  I view bringing those back into modern structures as a course correction, not an attempt to make a new building into something that it isn't.

Buildings should be good neighbors.

Proposed for Historic Greeup Street in Covington, KY:

http://www.nkytribune.com/2015/06/baker-hunt-proposing-major-renovation-may-face-opposition-at-the-urban-design-review-board/

 

 

I really like some modern infill in historic neighborhoods, but that's yucky.

I agree that proposal is ugly.

 

In-fill has to be done in historic neighborhoods, but I believe any in-fill should reflect and/or compliment the character of the structures that made the neighborhood a historic neighborhood to begin with. In-fill to me should say "I'm here", but not to the point that it says "I'm here, and look at me instead of the historic structures".

 

 

Except that's literally never going to happen when you deviate so far from the programmatic context like this pavilion will. You can't make this type of structure match the verticality of the massing and graining of the surrounding structures because its program is horizontal.

 

The idea that all historic architecture blended in and nothing stood out and commanded attention is one that is incorrect. It's someone believing a romanticized version of reality. Plenty of structures in historic places were so over the top in their detailing as an attempt to force people to look at them instead of their neighbors. Standing out architecturally was a power play.

 

This pavilion is NOT crazy by any stretch of the imagination and is actually a really simple gesture that works well in my opinion. You have no doubt that it does not share the same function as its neighbors and that's incredibly important in architecture. Making ambiguous buildings that don't let you know from the exterior what goes on in the interior is a problem. There's a disjoint when that happens that leads to bad architecture. This pavilion is not ugly, it's just different. Something that Cincinnatians are frustratingly scared of. This won't hurt the character or charm of the neighborhood nor should it try to blend. The historic neighbors are no less beautiful because of this.

 

Not only that, but Cincy has a history of pushing the architectural boundaries. It's only recently that it has gotten away from that. If we're going to be respectful of the architectural history of the region it's one of trying new things and staying out in front of the architectural movement, not one of blending in and being so banal that you forget it even exists. All for some misguided reason that historic buildings will somehow be lessened by having a modern neighbor.

 

Why should everything new bow down to historic buildings and not be given the exact same opportunity to survive the test of time that this structure's neighbors were given?

^

The idea that all historic architecture blended in and nothing stood out and commanded attention is one that is incorrect.

 

I didn't see anybody say that. Just that it was ugly. As for excessive ornamentation of historic buildings at least they had appropriate massing to fit into the neighborhood even if they "stood out" visually.

It's a continuation of previous conversations on this same subject. The idea that historic neighborhoods were all about buildings fitting in and they are static comes up quite often and people want to treat them like a museum which is a really great way to kill any momentum a neighborhood has.

 

Why is this massing inappropriate? This area doesn't only have one type of building massing. No neighborhood does. It's like when people complain about the idea of a long horizontal building in OTR claiming that isn't in context despite several historic examples of that existing. Or people who complain about multi-lot buildings and say things like, "the historic neighborhood is single lot, narrow buildings" which is just a simplified, romanticized version of reality.

 

This is a garden pavilion. It's not going to be tall. Historic examples of this type of program aren't tall. That doesn't instantly mean it doesn't fit in by default. But the reason people here immediately jump on modern designs is because the ridiculously strong opposition to them has resulted in essentially zero examples of historic architecture interacting with modern infill in our region. And people here are notoriously scared of change. But countless places around this country will show that architecture from this period can easily interact with modern infill and it enhances both.

That design is a big contextual F-you to the neighborhood. That's just an arrogant architect flexing his T-square muscles. Now it's time for the planning commission to flex its.

It looks like this pavilion is actually going to be set well back from the street in the garden, so I wouldn't grade it the same as a house or similar infill structure.

If acceptance of the building is based on "it's low and small and set back and hidden by trees and you won't see it much" then you're doing it wrong.  The same goes for mirrored glass buildings that "reflect the surrounding architecture."  This isn't a garden pavilion because it's not in a garden, it's an empty lot between two row houses.  If you want to do your objet d'art in a park, then it needs to be set alone in wide open spaces, not crammed into a small urban parcel.  If this were in a block-wide park across the street from these houses, then ok I guess, but this is making all the wrong gestures in the wrong place.