Apple's new Cupertino campus-an open letter to Steve Jobs
Dear Mr Jobs,
Due to the wonders of the iPad, I came across your June 7th presentation to the Cupertino council of the plans for the new Apple campus. My excitement at the start of your presentation -- expecting Apple's cutting edge tradition to appear in the Architecture and Planning -- soon turned to a profound disappointment.*
You were absolutely right to state that the intended capacity of 12,000 people in a single building is "rather odd". It is certainly not unique. Each of the destroyed WTC ?twin towers? had a larger capacity. However, the idea of a single circular building in the park and, indeed, a "campus" is odd in more than one aspect.*
It is odd because, since Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of the Great American Cities" (published in 1961) every one knows that dividing the city to single function zones, a practice known as "Zoning", is bad urban practice. Industrial "parks", which is essentially what you are planning at Cupertino, are inhabited on working hours and abandoned at night inviting all kinds of security hazards. They are tremendous generators of traffic congestion at peak hours, morning and afternoon, requiring supper wide roads that stay empty during most of both, day and night.*
It is odd because, while humanity must find ways to reduce CO emissions by private cars and invest in efficient means of human mobility, Apple is planning huge parking facilities that will encourage its employees to drive to work. You may think of an alternative to the costly construction of under or over ground parking in the shape of encouraging your staff to live next door and walk to work or; for those who live a little further, you could buy them a Segway. And for those who are even further away you could pay their bus ticket. The overall cost for society will be far lower and even more so for Apple.*
It is odd because even in the USA people are beginning to realize the ills of suburbia and urban sprawl, both concepts belonging to the middle of the last Century. A project the size of yours could mark the beginning of a new era in American urbanism, an era that puts human beings before the car, pedestrians before drivers. It could invest in creating a lively public realm, in the shape of streets rather than roads, where the people of Cupertino, including Apple employees, could meet, connect, do business and interact for their mutual benefit. Instead, your project replaces parking lot placelessness with "green" placelessness.*
If, as you said, your existing campus is boring, you obviously don't have the means to imagine how boring your circular "spaceship" building will be. It will simply look the same from every angle. Even the curved glass will look the same all around. If you've seen one, you've seen them all.*
The circular plan is not new. It was tried before and revealed that it creates real problems of orientation. No matter where you are, it all looks the same. When next in Washington DC don't miss a visit to the Hirshhorn museum (1974) and it's fine collection of modern Art. If they haven?t altered it since my last visit, you will at some point ask yourself: have I been here before? Have I reached the end of the exhibit? Did I already see this painting? You may also want to travel to Paris, France, where you can visit the once admired but always-disorienting circular terminal 1 at Charles De Gaulle airport (also 1974 vintage!).*
Moreover, also the idea of the building in the park is not new. It's the disastrous idea of Le Corbusier that swept the world in the 30's and seems to have a hold on you still. You can visit the urban wasteland of Brasilia, planned in the mid 50's in Le Corbusier's spirit, to realize the magnitude of the disaster.*
In your presentation you used the all too often misused term of "human scale", saying that the projected buildings on site will not exceed four stories in height, as if the height of a building is the single factor defining "human scale". I have never been to Cupertino, but I bet you there is not a single street, there, that feels as good (for humans, not cars) as most streets in Manhattan -- which is, despite its tall buildings, far more "human scaled" than Cupertino.*
You avoided naming your excellent architects. At some point, Sir Norman Foster was mentioned, but you might have selected any other ?starchitect.? This is not surprising. Foster?s is a big name, fit for the big job of a conservative client. He is also a great technician who can easily cope with a few kilometers of bent glass and exciting structure. These qualifications are all very important, but to conceive "the best office building in the world," you need more. True, today?s world looks for excitement and extravaganza, but misses on quality. Not just quality of construction and detail (which is very important, of course) but quality of living. One could have hoped that a visionary like you would understand that there is more to a building than just serving its occupants? functional needs. A good building serves its surrounding community first. A suburban community, housed by private homes within private gardens, does not need another super-sized park. Its members need to be able to mingle on the street, sit in a sidewalk cafe, buy something at a corner shop, and do all that while walking outdoors along a street -- not among the wastelands of Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple's staff needs more. Your employees should be able to select where and what to eat during their lunch break, and also, yes, whom they meet. The best 3,000 sq.m. In-house café, in which workers are forced to eat every single day, just won't do.*
I've seen great buildings, mediocre ones and even bad ones visited by student of architecture. Only very exceptional few are visited more then 10 years after they were built. Your "odd" spaceship will not last that long.*
Having, so far, been critical of the proposed Apple campus, let me end on a positive and hopeful note. "APPLE CITY" is what you want for Apple and Cupertino. Your current site is a perfect start.*
You might begin by looking at the surrounding roads with the intention to turn them into lively streets. These public spaces would be your anchors to Cupertino. Your exciting, state-of-the-art buildings, most probably built along these streets, could allow for commercial uses at ground level with mixed uses of offices and housing in the floors above. In order to encourage people to walk, you should examine the dimension of the street grid in the adjacent area and align new streets with those, so that people from the surrounding residential areas would be encouraged to walk across your site to other locations in the vicinity. You might allocate some plots for public buildings like an ?Apple School,? Apple ?iSport,? or an Apple ?iShow? theatre to be used for Apple's events, presentations, and (also) for public performances. You will still have ample area for a public park for the recreation of both Apple staff and Cupertino?s citizens.*
Apple, Google, and Facebook capitalize on the basic human need for contact. Urban habitation ? the City -- predates them by few millennia. Like them, a city?s raison d'être is to provide each individual with a huge network of potential contacts. However advanced and powerful, Apple, Google, Facebook (and others yet to come) will never replace the City; they will always complement it.*
You have a unique opportunity to lead urban planning and development in America and all over the world towards new horizons. A pioneering project such as this will draw visitors from all over the globe. Grab it!*
Sincerely,
*
Hillel Schocken
Due to the wonders of the iPad, I came across your June 7th presentation to the Cupertino council of the plans for the new Apple campus. My excitement at the start of your presentation -- expecting Apple's cutting edge tradition to appear in the Architecture and Planning -- soon turned to a profound disappointment.*
You were absolutely right to state that the intended capacity of 12,000 people in a single building is "rather odd". It is certainly not unique. Each of the destroyed WTC ?twin towers? had a larger capacity. However, the idea of a single circular building in the park and, indeed, a "campus" is odd in more than one aspect.*
It is odd because, since Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of the Great American Cities" (published in 1961) every one knows that dividing the city to single function zones, a practice known as "Zoning", is bad urban practice. Industrial "parks", which is essentially what you are planning at Cupertino, are inhabited on working hours and abandoned at night inviting all kinds of security hazards. They are tremendous generators of traffic congestion at peak hours, morning and afternoon, requiring supper wide roads that stay empty during most of both, day and night.*
It is odd because, while humanity must find ways to reduce CO emissions by private cars and invest in efficient means of human mobility, Apple is planning huge parking facilities that will encourage its employees to drive to work. You may think of an alternative to the costly construction of under or over ground parking in the shape of encouraging your staff to live next door and walk to work or; for those who live a little further, you could buy them a Segway. And for those who are even further away you could pay their bus ticket. The overall cost for society will be far lower and even more so for Apple.*
It is odd because even in the USA people are beginning to realize the ills of suburbia and urban sprawl, both concepts belonging to the middle of the last Century. A project the size of yours could mark the beginning of a new era in American urbanism, an era that puts human beings before the car, pedestrians before drivers. It could invest in creating a lively public realm, in the shape of streets rather than roads, where the people of Cupertino, including Apple employees, could meet, connect, do business and interact for their mutual benefit. Instead, your project replaces parking lot placelessness with "green" placelessness.*
If, as you said, your existing campus is boring, you obviously don't have the means to imagine how boring your circular "spaceship" building will be. It will simply look the same from every angle. Even the curved glass will look the same all around. If you've seen one, you've seen them all.*
The circular plan is not new. It was tried before and revealed that it creates real problems of orientation. No matter where you are, it all looks the same. When next in Washington DC don't miss a visit to the Hirshhorn museum (1974) and it's fine collection of modern Art. If they haven?t altered it since my last visit, you will at some point ask yourself: have I been here before? Have I reached the end of the exhibit? Did I already see this painting? You may also want to travel to Paris, France, where you can visit the once admired but always-disorienting circular terminal 1 at Charles De Gaulle airport (also 1974 vintage!).*
Moreover, also the idea of the building in the park is not new. It's the disastrous idea of Le Corbusier that swept the world in the 30's and seems to have a hold on you still. You can visit the urban wasteland of Brasilia, planned in the mid 50's in Le Corbusier's spirit, to realize the magnitude of the disaster.*
In your presentation you used the all too often misused term of "human scale", saying that the projected buildings on site will not exceed four stories in height, as if the height of a building is the single factor defining "human scale". I have never been to Cupertino, but I bet you there is not a single street, there, that feels as good (for humans, not cars) as most streets in Manhattan -- which is, despite its tall buildings, far more "human scaled" than Cupertino.*
You avoided naming your excellent architects. At some point, Sir Norman Foster was mentioned, but you might have selected any other ?starchitect.? This is not surprising. Foster?s is a big name, fit for the big job of a conservative client. He is also a great technician who can easily cope with a few kilometers of bent glass and exciting structure. These qualifications are all very important, but to conceive "the best office building in the world," you need more. True, today?s world looks for excitement and extravaganza, but misses on quality. Not just quality of construction and detail (which is very important, of course) but quality of living. One could have hoped that a visionary like you would understand that there is more to a building than just serving its occupants? functional needs. A good building serves its surrounding community first. A suburban community, housed by private homes within private gardens, does not need another super-sized park. Its members need to be able to mingle on the street, sit in a sidewalk cafe, buy something at a corner shop, and do all that while walking outdoors along a street -- not among the wastelands of Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple's staff needs more. Your employees should be able to select where and what to eat during their lunch break, and also, yes, whom they meet. The best 3,000 sq.m. In-house café, in which workers are forced to eat every single day, just won't do.*
I've seen great buildings, mediocre ones and even bad ones visited by student of architecture. Only very exceptional few are visited more then 10 years after they were built. Your "odd" spaceship will not last that long.*
Having, so far, been critical of the proposed Apple campus, let me end on a positive and hopeful note. "APPLE CITY" is what you want for Apple and Cupertino. Your current site is a perfect start.*
You might begin by looking at the surrounding roads with the intention to turn them into lively streets. These public spaces would be your anchors to Cupertino. Your exciting, state-of-the-art buildings, most probably built along these streets, could allow for commercial uses at ground level with mixed uses of offices and housing in the floors above. In order to encourage people to walk, you should examine the dimension of the street grid in the adjacent area and align new streets with those, so that people from the surrounding residential areas would be encouraged to walk across your site to other locations in the vicinity. You might allocate some plots for public buildings like an ?Apple School,? Apple ?iSport,? or an Apple ?iShow? theatre to be used for Apple's events, presentations, and (also) for public performances. You will still have ample area for a public park for the recreation of both Apple staff and Cupertino?s citizens.*
Apple, Google, and Facebook capitalize on the basic human need for contact. Urban habitation ? the City -- predates them by few millennia. Like them, a city?s raison d'être is to provide each individual with a huge network of potential contacts. However advanced and powerful, Apple, Google, Facebook (and others yet to come) will never replace the City; they will always complement it.*
You have a unique opportunity to lead urban planning and development in America and all over the world towards new horizons. A pioneering project such as this will draw visitors from all over the globe. Grab it!*
Sincerely,
*
Hillel Schocken
Comments
Because we're not Apple. And we have nothing to do with them.
I understand that but I believe some Apple personnel might be following this thread and I believe it is important for them to be exposed to this letter/
No. They're not. If you actually expected results from this, you'd actually send it to Apple.
Send it to Steve Jobs himself. Send it to any of the Senior Vice Presidents.
We have nothing to do with Apple.
No. They're not. If you actually expected results from this, you'd actually send it to Apple.
Send it to Steve Jobs himself. Send it to any of the Senior Vice Presidents.
We have nothing to do with Apple.
Still, I like that it has been shared with us here.
Nonetheless, Hillel Schocken, be sure to send it to Steve Jobs, Apple official channels, and the Cupertino/California/US government representatives.
No. They're not. If you actually expected results from this, you'd actually send it to Apple.
Send it to Steve Jobs himself. Send it to any of the Senior Vice Presidents.
We have nothing to do with Apple.
I think the concept you are struggling to understand is "open letter." It was presumably sent to Steve Jobs but shared with the public.
To the issues, I think this is a well argued case for urbanism vs. suburbanism, though I don't see that as being the full crux of the matter. The real debate here (for those who take an interest in such things) is between modernism and traditional city forms, contextualism vs. non-contextualism. Modernists deliberately turned their backs on urban context, and this became the reigning theory of design after the war. Context as a design criteria wasn't fully rediscovered until the historic preservation movement during the 1970s, and the New Urbanism movement which followed. We'd plowed a lot of cities under during the interim, in the name of modernism.
The conceptual design of the new Apple campus left me a little cold. No question it will be monumental, but fundamentally not very challenging to any norms of corporate design. After the initial wow factor wears off, it all seems a bit dull and very conservative in terms of architecture and planning. Indeed Apple does have an opportunity to be bold here, which ironically they've been with their product design. But not with this building, at least not so far.
I see Steve's fingerprints all over this. He fashions himself as being knowledgeable about architecture (a subject he once studied) but at other times has shown himself to be out of his depth on the topic. We know how enamored Steve is with curves. So this building unsurprisingly is the Ultimate Curve. It's a fairly shallow idea to begin with and extremely limiting if it's a dogmatic approach, which I think it's fair to say, it has become. It's interesting to see someone who's made such a huge and positive impact in one area overreach into another, and come up with a hand full of sand. Steve should allows his architects to conceptualize and design. I suspect the results would be far more interesting, not to mention, bolder.
I won't bother deconstructing your post at this time, but I surely could. Suffice it to say if I were Apple, I would dismiss it out of hand. It's presumptuous, arrogant, and sounds as if it might be written by someone with ulterior motives. Enough said.
Apple is a consumer electronics and computer company. They are going to build a new campus. As a responsible company, they are going to try to do so in an environmentally friendly way. They are not going to try to change the world by "encouraging employees to live next door." Of course they are planning "huge" parking facilities. They need their employees to get to work. It is not Apple's job to reinvent the modern city or start a national movement away from suburban sprawl. And they certainly don't care what you think of their design, nor should they.
I won't bother deconstructing your post at this time, but I surely could. Suffice it to say if I were Apple, I would dismiss it out of hand. It's presumptuous, arrogant, and sounds as if it might be written by someone with ulterior motives. Enough said.
You won't "bother deconstructing" his post not because it's too much trouble, but because it's apparent that you lack either the knowledge or ability to respond to the actual arguments being made.
Dear Mr Jobs,
Due to the wonders of the iPad, I came across your June 7th presentation to the Cupertino council of the plans for the new Apple campus. My excitement at the start of your presentation -- expecting Apple's cutting edge tradition to appear in the Architecture and Planning -- soon turned to a profound disappointment.*
You were absolutely right to state that the intended capacity of 12,000 people in a single building is "rather odd". It is certainly not unique. Each of the destroyed WTC ?twin towers? had a larger capacity. However, the idea of a single circular building in the park and, indeed, a "campus" is odd in more than one aspect.*
It is odd because, since Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of the Great American Cities" (published in 1961) every one knows that dividing the city to single function zones, a practice known as "Zoning", is bad urban practice. Industrial "parks", which is essentially what you are planning at Cupertino, are inhabited on working hours and abandoned at night inviting all kinds of security hazards. They are tremendous generators of traffic congestion at peak hours, morning and afternoon, requiring supper wide roads that stay empty during most of both, day and night.*
It is odd because, while humanity must find ways to reduce CO emissions by private cars and invest in efficient means of human mobility, Apple is planning huge parking facilities that will encourage its employees to drive to work. You may think of an alternative to the costly construction of under or over ground parking in the shape of encouraging your staff to live next door and walk to work or; for those who live a little further, you could buy them a Segway. And for those who are even further away you could pay their bus ticket. The overall cost for society will be far lower and even more so for Apple.*
It is odd because even in the USA people are beginning to realize the ills of suburbia and urban sprawl, both concepts belonging to the middle of the last Century. A project the size of yours could mark the beginning of a new era in American urbanism, an era that puts human beings before the car, pedestrians before drivers. It could invest in creating a lively public realm, in the shape of streets rather than roads, where the people of Cupertino, including Apple employees, could meet, connect, do business and interact for their mutual benefit. Instead, your project replaces parking lot placelessness with "green" placelessness.*
If, as you said, your existing campus is boring, you obviously don't have the means to imagine how boring your circular "spaceship" building will be. It will simply look the same from every angle. Even the curved glass will look the same all around. If you've seen one, you've seen them all.*
The circular plan is not new. It was tried before and revealed that it creates real problems of orientation. No matter where you are, it all looks the same. When next in Washington DC don't miss a visit to the Hirshhorn museum (1974) and it's fine collection of modern Art. If they haven?t altered it since my last visit, you will at some point ask yourself: have I been here before? Have I reached the end of the exhibit? Did I already see this painting? You may also want to travel to Paris, France, where you can visit the once admired but always-disorienting circular terminal 1 at Charles De Gaulle airport (also 1974 vintage!).*
Moreover, also the idea of the building in the park is not new. It's the disastrous idea of Le Corbusier that swept the world in the 30's and seems to have a hold on you still. You can visit the urban wasteland of Brasilia, planned in the mid 50's in Le Corbusier's spirit, to realize the magnitude of the disaster.*
In your presentation you used the all too often misused term of "human scale", saying that the projected buildings on site will not exceed four stories in height, as if the height of a building is the single factor defining "human scale". I have never been to Cupertino, but I bet you there is not a single street, there, that feels as good (for humans, not cars) as most streets in Manhattan -- which is, despite its tall buildings, far more "human scaled" than Cupertino.*
You avoided naming your excellent architects. At some point, Sir Norman Foster was mentioned, but you might have selected any other ?starchitect.? This is not surprising. Foster?s is a big name, fit for the big job of a conservative client. He is also a great technician who can easily cope with a few kilometers of bent glass and exciting structure. These qualifications are all very important, but to conceive "the best office building in the world," you need more. True, today?s world looks for excitement and extravaganza, but misses on quality. Not just quality of construction and detail (which is very important, of course) but quality of living. One could have hoped that a visionary like you would understand that there is more to a building than just serving its occupants? functional needs. A good building serves its surrounding community first. A suburban community, housed by private homes within private gardens, does not need another super-sized park. Its members need to be able to mingle on the street, sit in a sidewalk cafe, buy something at a corner shop, and do all that while walking outdoors along a street -- not among the wastelands of Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple's staff needs more. Your employees should be able to select where and what to eat during their lunch break, and also, yes, whom they meet. The best 3,000 sq.m. In-house café, in which workers are forced to eat every single day, just won't do.*
I've seen great buildings, mediocre ones and even bad ones visited by student of architecture. Only very exceptional few are visited more then 10 years after they were built. Your "odd" spaceship will not last that long.*
Having, so far, been critical of the proposed Apple campus, let me end on a positive and hopeful note. "APPLE CITY" is what you want for Apple and Cupertino. Your current site is a perfect start.*
You might begin by looking at the surrounding roads with the intention to turn them into lively streets. These public spaces would be your anchors to Cupertino. Your exciting, state-of-the-art buildings, most probably built along these streets, could allow for commercial uses at ground level with mixed uses of offices and housing in the floors above. In order to encourage people to walk, you should examine the dimension of the street grid in the adjacent area and align new streets with those, so that people from the surrounding residential areas would be encouraged to walk across your site to other locations in the vicinity. You might allocate some plots for public buildings like an ?Apple School,? Apple ?iSport,? or an Apple ?iShow? theatre to be used for Apple's events, presentations, and (also) for public performances. You will still have ample area for a public park for the recreation of both Apple staff and Cupertino?s citizens.*
Apple, Google, and Facebook capitalize on the basic human need for contact. Urban habitation ? the City -- predates them by few millennia. Like them, a city?s raison d'être is to provide each individual with a huge network of potential contacts. However advanced and powerful, Apple, Google, Facebook (and others yet to come) will never replace the City; they will always complement it.*
You have a unique opportunity to lead urban planning and development in America and all over the world towards new horizons. A pioneering project such as this will draw visitors from all over the globe. Grab it!*
Sincerely,
*
Hillel Schocken
Why don't you take your letter and deliver it personally to Steve Jobs.See what he thinks.
You won't "bother deconstructing" his post not because it's too much trouble, but because it's apparent that you lack either the knowledge or ability to respond to the actual arguments being made.
No, that's an assumption you've made and posted publicly...all to make your intellect appear superior. The net result is that you come off looking like "something" that would get me an infraction if I posted it.
Why don't you take your letter and deliver it personally to Steve Jobs.See what he thinks.
Again, it's called an "open letter," which means he did send it to Steve.
No, that's an assumption you've made and posted publicly...all to make your intellect appear superior. The net result is that you come off looking like "something" that would get me an infraction if I posted it.
No, that's apparent from your use of a textbook ad hominem attack on the writer, accusing him of ulterior motives instead of responding to his argument. It's not an infraction to point out someone else's infraction.
You don't need a "superior intellect" to participate in the discussion, just an interest in the subject matter.
The circular plan is not new. It was tried before and revealed that it creates real problems of orientation. No matter where you are, it all looks the same. When next in Washington DC don't miss a visit to the Hirshhorn museum (1974) and it's fine collection of modern Art. If they haven?t altered it since my last visit, you will at some point ask yourself: have I been here before? Have I reached the end of the exhibit? Did I already see this painting? You may also want to travel to Paris, France, where you can visit the once admired but always-disorienting circular terminal 1 at Charles De Gaulle airport (also 1974 vintage!).*
I'm sure Steve will make an App for that, but on a serious note you make some valid points and you should send it to Steve-O's public email @ [email protected]
Again, it's called an "open letter," which means he did send it to Steve.
No, that's apparent from your use of a textbook ad hominem attack on the writer, accusing him of ulterior motives instead of responding to his argument. It's not an infraction to point out someone else's infraction.
You don't need a "superior intellect" to participate in the discussion, just an interest in the subject matter.
It's not ad hominem to suggest he has ulterior motives. Ulterior motives are not necessarily sinister motives, just hidden ones. That was my impression. You are free to disagree, as is he.
It's not ad hominem to suggest he has ulterior motives. Ulterior motives are not necessarily sinister motives, just hidden ones. That was my impression. You are free to disagree, as is he.
Textbook ad hominem. You attacked the person instead of the argument. Perhaps because we see so much of this now some people have been accustomed to the technique. But it still is what it is. Not a disagreement, but a fact. You are free not to care.
Textbook ad hominem. You attacked the person instead of the argument. Perhaps because we see so much of this now some people have been accustomed to the technique. But it still is what it is. Not a disagreement, but a fact. You are free not to care.
I am not "attacking" anyone. I am saying it sounds like he has ulterior motives. Specifically, I am saying that his post implies he has some sort of environmental agenda. It's fully of "change the world" type statements:
It is odd because, since Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of the Great American Cities" (published in 1961) every one knows that dividing the city to single function zones, a practice known as "Zoning", is bad urban practice....
...It is odd because, while humanity must find ways to reduce CO emissions by private cars and invest in efficient means of human mobility, Apple is planning huge parking facilities that will encourage its employees to drive to work....
....It is odd because even in the USA people are beginning to realize the ills of suburbia and urban sprawl, both concepts belonging to the middle of the last Century....
... A good building serves its surrounding community first. A suburban community, housed by private homes within private gardens, does not need another super-sized park. Its members need to be able to mingle on the street, sit in a sidewalk cafe, buy something at a corner shop, and do all that while walking outdoors along a street -- not among the wastelands of Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple's staff needs more. Your employees should be able to select where and what to eat during their lunch break, and also, yes, whom they meet. The best 3,000 sq.m. In-house café, in which workers are forced to eat every single day, just won't do.*...
I mean, really. He's getting into the lifestyles of the workers, as if that is any of his concern. He's making statements like "the USA people are beginning to realize the ills of suburbia and urban sprawl" and " A good building serves its surrounding community first." These are not the concerns of someone that is worried solely about the local impacts and/or aesthetics of a building. It's someone that wants Apple to help change American lifestyles. Ergo, he has ulterior motives.
Edit: The last part is the best....it makes my argument for me: Quote:
You have a unique opportunity to lead urban planning and development in America and all over the world towards new horizons. A pioneering project such as this will draw visitors from all over the globe. Grab it!*
Incidentally, let me take a moment to address Apple's planned campus: I think it is superb. It balances Apple's need for expansion in an environmentally-friendly, aesthetically-pleasing way. The elimination of so much parking lot space alone is excellent. The design is unique and interesting. If it meets Apple's needs, it is not my job to bitch about its circular design and the existence of a fucking cafeteria. Apple is not in the business of remaking cities.
Tell ya what...you want an ad hominem? Fine. This guy is a total wing-nut. And there you have it.
Anyway, to the extent that you've attempted to justify your attack, you are wrong on the substance. Without using the term, he is describing New Urbanism. This has been the dominant approach to city planning and architecture in the U.S. for 20 years or more. It's not "wing nut," it's entirely mainstream. You may not know that, but it's true nonetheless. So when he argues that Apple's new campus design is retrograde, he is making an accurate statement. In terms of what is going on in architecture and planning today, the ways thinking in these professions has changed about how cities work, Apple's plan is certainly a throwback to the 1980s or earlier.
And there you have it.
Steve-O should name the new spaceship campus 'Axiom'.
Their HQ address is 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California. What better way to associate with this than by building an actual infinite loop.
They said they are going to start holding presentations there too so they don't have to travel to the Moscone Centre in San Francisco. No more sneaking a peek at hidden banners.