or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › LA Times critic disparages Apple Campus 2 as 'retrograde cocoon'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LA Times critic disparages Apple Campus 2 as 'retrograde cocoon' - Page 4

post #121 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

There's a huge-a$$ parking garage forming a wall hundreds of yards long along Interstate 280.

I was much more supportive of the new campus before I began diving into the details, such as the size and location of the parking garage. The more I examined the entire proposal, the less I liked it -- why can't the parking be underground? why not do a 6-story building and obviate the need for campus 3? with all of Apple's money, why not do something even better - a Geery Apple HQ, for instance?


If you'd dug a little deeper, you'd have learned that there IS underground parking under the main structure. The problem with having all the parking underground is two-fold... it isn't geologically feasible it isn't safe. Remember that Cupertino straddles the San Andreas Fault. It's just not feasible or safe to bury all the parking structures. ... and, I'd rather have a parking structure border ten lanes of freeway than a neighborhood, wouldn't you?
post #122 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Exactly. Departing from the rectalinear environment in which our species evolved is foolish. Human beings are too detached from our environment already - we need to return to the comforting right angles of the natural world.

Good one. I wonder if he'll get it.
post #123 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoshop59 View Post

I would not want to work in a circular environment like that. There is a reason that most of our architecture is right angled, and logical. People will feel out of sorts, disoriented, and uncomfortable in a space like this.

exactly. workers don't know how to process open space. it confuses and frightens them.

they're much happier in a traditional rectangular shapes, preferably with low ceilings and lots of artificial light. windows can also confuse a worker's sense of space by looking out on something larger and making the space they're in seem smaller, so let's ditch those too.

by subdividing the main space into lots of cozy sub-rectangles we create a pen-like environment which makes workers feel safe, calm and appreciated.

nobody wants to work in an office shaped like the Guggenheim.
post #124 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoshop59 View Post

I would not want to work in a circular environment like that. There is a reason that most of our architecture is right angled, and logical. People will feel out of sorts, disoriented, and uncomfortable in a space like this.

The real reason most architecture is square is because it's the lowest common denominator (cheap & easy).

I once worked in a building that was about 1/4 of a circle on one end - think "J" shaped building, where the curve was long and graceful. It was a friggin awesome building! All of the folks who worked there enjoyed it alot. It felt like it was 3 times larger than it actually was.
post #125 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

That's why many new suburban developments are moving towards mixed used (retail, office, residential) that include "town centers" and modes of human interaction and away from the shopping mall, big box stores and strip malls that constitute much of American suburban development today.

With a potential of 12,000 customers nearby mixed-use projects with stores, restaurants and apartments/condominiums are likely to evolve. The City counsel would probably accommodate the zoning changes to scrape some $1m two to three bedroom homes. Go for it!
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #126 of 306
Just where does this hack writer believe Apple should put thirteen-thousand people now and thirteen-thousand more people in 2018? With all the crap that Steve Jobs went through for ten years to demolish an old house, how long would it take to get several buildings condemned and torn down in the center of any old city? It would take FOREVER!

Plugging in that many employees into several adjacent existing buildings might work but it would be very inefficient for employee movement between sections. Imagine how many people would need to be going up and down elevators and crossing streets to get to different sections of the campus. It would be a waste of time. One location is the most efficient way to keep things flowing smoothly.

I would be good if Apple Created a larger bus system to transport employees to and from work instead of needing to have such a huge parking lot. Apple already has a bus fleet.
post #127 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post

With a potential of 12,000 customers nearby mixed-use projects with stores, restaurants and apartments/condominiums are likely to evolve. The City counsel would probably accommodate the zoning changes to scrape some $1m two to three bedroom homes. Go for it!

There are luxury apartments and shopping centers (that need to be updated btw) a few blocks away already....
post #128 of 306
Quote:
1. What is wrong with a suburban setting?

It's a long, long list. The writing on the subject is encyclopedic. In short, the suburbs are parasitic, isolating, wasteful, a major factor in our deadly sedentary lifestyle, and of course ugly, cheap, and ephemeral. Above all, a suburban life is a disposable life.

Quote:
2. Old fashioned? It wouldn't matter what shape was chosen, this guy would dig back through history to find something to compare it to, and still call it old fashioned.

His comparison to the Pentagon is particularly apt a huge, hollow structure surrounded by the clogged highways it created, like an animal fouling its own nest. Given the vast range of choices available to Apple, a 1950's "Lost in Space" reference is both disappointing and a tragic waste of an opportunity.

Quote:
3. I agree is has a decidedly 60-70's look to it. Is there something wrong with that?

Quite a bit. It's morbid, and coming from what regards itself as the single most innovative institution on the planet, bizarrely hypocritical. If nothing else, whoever decided everyone should work in the Jupiter II forgot to "think different."

Quote:
4. Apple is one of the "greenest" companies around.

Hawthorne is right to expose the oxymoron of a "green" building that will require hundreds of thousands of car trips per year. It's rather like they're putting solar panels on a coal-fired power plant. Any resource-responsible aspects of the campus will be significantly offset by the negative behavior required anyone who needs or wants to go there. "Green" is about long-term impact, not light bulbs.

Quote:
5. This guy uses cars as an argument against Apple's environmental efforts? What a bone-head. First, where in the world can you put a building where people won't need cars to get there?

Gee, uh, I dunno Let's ask go ask the nearest kindergarten class and time how many seconds it takes for the whole room to shout "In the city!"

I'm 52, have lived in DC, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle and have never owned a car or in any way missed having one. I've much of my waking life in offices, and have yet to drive to work. It's easy, safe, and environmentally sound. Commuting is stupid, wasteful, and destructive. Cars are for fat lazy chumps who buy crap in strip malls.

By the way, the argument to tradition is a logical fallacy. "We've always done it that way" has been used to support everything from toxic waste dumps to slavery.

Quote:
6. His use of "pastoral capitalism" as an argument suggests that if he had his way, everyone would work in big cities. Guess what dude, not everyone wants to do that

Guess what, dude? That fact that many people do or don't want do a thing says nothing about the logic, responsibility, destructiveness, or sanity of the behavior. Like your argument to tradition above, the argument ad populum is a logical fallacy generally covered in high school. In practice, what most people want almost always involves short-term pleasure achieved at the expense of long-term sanity.

"Pastoral capitalism" is when the eloi surround themselves with trees, fields, ponds, and espresso machines while the underage morlocks who build the products live, sleep, eat, and work 14 hour days as indentured servants in a factory they can never leave.

7. This was an interesting phrase: "Apple's campus... keeps itself aloof from the world around it to a degree that is unusual even in a part of California dominated by office parks." So, Chris, what, you're a conformist then? Or maybe a communist? Maybe Apple wants to stay a bit detached from the noise, congestion and commotion going on around them, so they can focus on their work in a quiet, peaceful environment. Once again you paint this as a negative. What the heck is wrong with it?

Isolation is socially destructive and intellectually stifling. Healthy people and organizations mingle. Cults, however, keep their members in cages to prevent them from being contaminated by unbelievers.

The reason America's greatest scientific resource is its 50 or so top research universities has nothing to do with ivy and a lot to do with throwing a lot of people from different disciplines doing a huge number of different things in a relatively confined area. In contrast, Apple's monolithic new environment will resemble a mega-church far more than a campus.
post #129 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

There's a huge-a$$ parking garage forming a wall hundreds of yards long along Interstate 280.

I think the parking structure is open on all sides with cable rails, but if it isn't it will be great for super-size advertising legal or otherwise.
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #130 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

Uh, why? Did this guy single-handedly create L.A.'s car culture? Did he force every Angeleno, decades ago, to vote against public transit and build freeways?

Don't be so snide and simple, it just negates anything substantive might you have to say.

Snark is called for in this case. Hawthorne , as "Architecture Critic for the Los Angeles Times", should solve LA/SoCal's problems first -- before looking to NorCal for things to complain about. Having lived in both locales (briefly, thankfully, in L.A.) I can attest that L.A. has no functional mass transit. At least the Bay Area takes a stab at it.

Here's my question for you; what would you have done differently to make this campus more mass transit friendly given the site available and the current mass transit infrastructure (CalTrain, etc.)?

What this really comes down to is that any effort a company makes toward being green will only set them up for failure. There will never be a perfect Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow because the company won't be able to afford to build and maintain it and the people won't live in it given other options. Someone will always complain that it's not enough. If you want a sacrificial lamb, go find the guy who decided to tax Silicon Valley land at it's best and highest use; that's when the original orchards and green spaces were doomed.

Apropos of nothing; Google has the closest implementation of your hive/borgship concept, and that's only so they can take care of their worker bees who aren't capable of cooking and cleaning for themselves.

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #131 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Cars are for fat lazy chumps who buy crap in strip malls.

Hmmmm... I was willing to listen until I reached that point and then I just turned away realizing that I was reading a bile driven fantasy...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #132 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

It's a long, long list. The writing on the subject is encyclopedic. In short, the suburbs are parasitic, isolating, wasteful, a major factor in our deadly sedentary lifestyle, and of course ugly, cheap, and ephemeral. Above all, a suburban life is a disposable life.



His comparison to the Pentagon is particularly apt a huge, hollow structure surrounded by the clogged highways it created, like an animal fouling its own nest. Given the vast range of choices available to Apple, a 1950's "Lost in Space" reference is both disappointing and a tragic waste of an opportunity.



Quite a bit. It's morbid, and coming from what regards itself as the single most innovative institution on the planet, bizarrely hypocritical. If nothing else, whoever decided everyone should work in the Jupiter II forgot to "think different."



Hawthorne is right to expose the oxymoron of a "green" building that will require hundreds of thousands of car trips per year. It's rather like they're putting solar panels on a coal-fired power plant. Any resource-responsible aspects of the campus will be significantly offset by the negative behavior required anyone who needs or wants to go there. "Green" is about long-term impact, not light bulbs.



Gee, uh, I dunno Let's ask go ask the nearest kindergarten class and time how many seconds it takes for the whole room to shout "In the city!"

I'm 52, have lived in DC, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle and have never owned a car or in any way missed having one. I've much of my waking life in offices, and have yet to drive to work. It's easy, safe, and environmentally sound. Commuting is stupid, wasteful, and destructive. Cars are for fat lazy chumps who buy crap in strip malls.

By the way, the argument to tradition is a logical fallacy. "We've always done it that way" has been used to support everything from toxic waste dumps to slavery.



Guess what, dude? That fact that many people do or don't want do a thing says nothing about the logic, responsibility, destructiveness, or sanity of the behavior. Like your argument to tradition above, the argument ad populum is a logical fallacy generally covered in high school. In practice, what most people want almost always involves short-term pleasure achieved at the expense of long-term sanity.

"Pastoral capitalism" is when the eloi surround themselves with trees, fields, ponds, and espresso machines while the underage morlocks who build the products live, sleep, eat, and work 14 hour days as indentured servants in a factory they can never leave.

7. This was an interesting phrase: "Apple's campus... keeps itself aloof from the world around it to a degree that is unusual even in a part of California dominated by office parks." So, Chris, what, you're a conformist then? Or maybe a communist? Maybe Apple wants to stay a bit detached from the noise, congestion and commotion going on around them, so they can focus on their work in a quiet, peaceful environment. Once again you paint this as a negative. What the heck is wrong with it?

Isolation is socially destructive and intellectually stifling. Healthy people and organizations mingle. Cults, however, keep their members in cages to prevent them from being contaminated by unbelievers.

The reason America's greatest scientific resource is its 50 or so top research universities has nothing to do with ivy and a lot to do with throwing a lot of people from different disciplines doing a huge number of different things in a relatively confined area. In contrast, Apple's monolithic new environment will resemble a mega-church far more than a campus.

You've told us what shouldn't be done, pretty much anything they have planned now. Tell us what you would do specifically as far as location, shape, size, transportation etc. The devil is in the details.
post #133 of 306
.

LA Times has an "Architecture Critic" ?

.



.
post #134 of 306
"retrograde cocoon?" That's silly.

There's nothing retrograde about it, by his own admission that is has a 'futuristic gleam' and a 'spaceship.' Apple is cocoon-ish, that's their corporate culture..

Unless this guy means that cocoons are, by definition, retrograde. If so, he's redundant.
post #135 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC Kelly View Post

.

LA Times has an "Architecture Critic" ?

.



.

Would someone please drive a stake into Ayn Rand's heart once and for all?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #136 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Would someone please drive a stake into Ayn Rand's heart once and for all?

Ayn Rand has a heart?!
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #137 of 306
Christopher Hawthorne can lick my balls
post #138 of 306
Christopher Hawthorne enjoy that.
post #139 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Ayn Rand has a heart?!

Hah! Maybe her liver, then. I got the stake.
post #140 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Ayn Rand has a heart?!



Despite all of her belched bile, she went on the dole (Medicare, Social Security) under her husband's last name when she got cancer from the cigs she spent her adult life claiming were perfectly safe.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_792184.html

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #141 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot View Post

"we express fundamental American values of openness and respect for the surrounding environment. "

You're kidding, right?

No not kidding.

At our best (or at least in our history), America has represented those ideals to ourselves and the world. Our architecture, as a cultural expression, can express and reinforce those values and ideals.

USA: historically most open nation to immigration
USA: the first great democracy in modern times
USA: First nation to create national parks
USA: First nation to protect individual species from extinction (vis birds from feather hunters in the year 1900)
USA: First (or early) environmental protection agengy
USA: First campus planning typology that connected the academic campus to the surrounding community
etc, etc.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #142 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodypainter View Post

to go from north to south you seed a Segway.

It takes an average adult in good health about four minutes to leisurely walk one-quarter mile, which seems to be the maximum distance between the building's inside-circle entrances. Supposing one has a meeting on the far side, I'd guess that a 10-minute walk from chair to chair would be the most someone has to spend being ambulatory.

And those staring at a computer monitor all day could use the exercise.

As for the criticism about the new campus not helping liberate Cupertino from the automobile paradigm... it's not a big stretch to one day see public transit be efficiently quick from all corners of the Bay Area to the campus, and the parking garage get repurposed after a decade or two. (I bet stagnant Bay Area transit projects get fast-tracked without fuss once gasoline hits $10 a gallon. Hey, it's already at four bucks now...)
post #143 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

Respect for the environment is a "fundamental American value"?


Yep, we have more respect and protections for the environment than ~80% of nations, and we led the way (see my other posting about USA being first in most everything). So if fundamental mean stuff that Americans have believed in for most of our history, yes.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #144 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

It's a long, long list. The writing on the subject is encyclopedic. In short, the suburbs are parasitic, isolating, wasteful, a major factor in our deadly sedentary lifestyle, and of course ugly, cheap, and ephemeral. Above all, a suburban life is a disposable life.

His comparison to the Pentagon is particularly apt a huge, hollow structure surrounded by the clogged highways it created, like an animal fouling its own nest. Given the vast range of choices available to Apple, a 1950's "Lost in Space" reference is both disappointing and a tragic waste of an opportunity.

Quite a bit. It's morbid, and coming from what regards itself as the single most innovative institution on the planet, bizarrely hypocritical. If nothing else, whoever decided everyone should work in the Jupiter II forgot to "think different."

Hawthorne is right to expose the oxymoron of a "green" building that will require hundreds of thousands of car trips per year. It's rather like they're putting solar panels on a coal-fired power plant. Any resource-responsible aspects of the campus will be significantly offset by the negative behavior required anyone who needs or wants to go there. "Green" is about long-term impact, not light bulbs.

Gee, uh, I dunno Let's ask go ask the nearest kindergarten class and time how many seconds it takes for the whole room to shout "In the city!"

I'm 52, have lived in DC, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle and have never owned a car or in any way missed having one. I've much of my waking life in offices, and have yet to drive to work. It's easy, safe, and environmentally sound. Commuting is stupid, wasteful, and destructive. Cars are for fat lazy chumps who buy crap in strip malls.

By the way, the argument to tradition is a logical fallacy. "We've always done it that way" has been used to support everything from toxic waste dumps to slavery.

Guess what, dude? That fact that many people do or don't want do a thing says nothing about the logic, responsibility, destructiveness, or sanity of the behavior. Like your argument to tradition above, the argument ad populum is a logical fallacy generally covered in high school. In practice, what most people want almost always involves short-term pleasure achieved at the expense of long-term sanity.

"Pastoral capitalism" is when the eloi surround themselves with trees, fields, ponds, and espresso machines while the underage morlocks who build the products live, sleep, eat, and work 14 hour days as indentured servants in a factory they can never leave.

7. This was an interesting phrase: "Apple's campus... keeps itself aloof from the world around it to a degree that is unusual even in a part of California dominated by office parks." So, Chris, what, you're a conformist then? Or maybe a communist? Maybe Apple wants to stay a bit detached from the noise, congestion and commotion going on around them, so they can focus on their work in a quiet, peaceful environment. Once again you paint this as a negative. What the heck is wrong with it?

Isolation is socially destructive and intellectually stifling. Healthy people and organizations mingle. Cults, however, keep their members in cages to prevent them from being contaminated by unbelievers.

The reason America's greatest scientific resource is its 50 or so top research universities has nothing to do with ivy and a lot to do with throwing a lot of people from different disciplines doing a huge number of different things in a relatively confined area. In contrast, Apple's monolithic new environment will resemble a mega-church far more than a campus.

You completely missed the point. The questions were rhetorical. So let me rephrase and respond:
1. There is nothing wrong with a suburban setting. People like them, they're not going away, despite your fantasies.
2. There's nothing wrong with the Pentagon. I've lived in DC (more on that later). There are huge freeways because of the population, not the building. If the Apple campus was a pyramid, this writer would have looked to Egypt and said "see, it's old-fashioned."
3. Not all '70's architecture was "morbid" as you state (how does that word even apply?). I see nothing wrong with it. Some 60-70's architecture was plain ugly indeed, but the design of the new Apple campus is definitely not.
4. Hawthorne is moronic, and there is nothing to "expose". So, how do you suppose people get around in Cupertino? It is not NYC. People are going to be driving whether Apple is there or not. Do you expect the world to urbanize? Again, fantasy. It's not going to happen. Get used to it.
5. There may be what, 2 or 3 cities in the entire country where you can get around without a car... Ah, but when was the last time you were in NYC? The last time I was there (in my car) I spent an hour getting through the traffic jam at the holland tunnel, and then stuck for 2 hours at an I-278 interchange on Long Island trying to get out. So much for "no cars" in big cities. I don't believe you've lived in the places you state. Since I actually have lived in DC and Seattle, I can tell you for certain, you do need a car. Sorry. Again, your fantasies are interfering with reality.
6. Nobody made an 'argument ad populum'. There is a distinction between what people 'believe' and what reality is. If anyone is deluded, it would seem to be Hawthorne, and you.
7. Nonsense. You're really grabbing at straws. Isolationist? Cults? Maybe you should pull yourself out of a noisy, polluted, congested urban environment long enough to see the therapeutic results of quiet, peaceful surroundings. Experience the spiritual and intellectual benefits when your brain doesn't have to constantly work to block out all the commotion.
post #145 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

It's a long, long list. The writing on the subject is encyclopedic. In short, the suburbs are parasitic, isolating, wasteful, a major factor in our deadly sedentary lifestyle, and of course ugly, cheap, and ephemeral. Above all, a suburban life is a disposable life.

And the writings on why people prefer the suburbs is encyclopedic. Big Fkg Deal. Who cares what someone else thinks? Different strokes for different folks. I think your life sucks, you think the reverse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

I'm 52, have lived in DC, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle and have never owned a car or in any way missed having one. I've much of my waking life in offices, and have yet to drive to work. It's easy, safe, and environmentally sound. Commuting is stupid, wasteful, and destructive. Cars are for fat lazy chumps who buy crap in strip malls.

Spoken like a selfish, single dude who never grew up, got married and had kids. If you had, you wouldn't be so quick to make such stupid, ignorant comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Isolation is socially destructive and intellectually stifling. Healthy people and organizations mingle.

Isolation can happen anywhere. It sounds like you "isolate" yourself among like-minded, city-dwelling folks like yourself, ridiculing anyone with different opinions about life values. Myself, I have a car, and drive all around my city, spending time with people from literally all walks of life and a wide variety of opinions. Of course it helps to have kids (in public schools) to understand this. The world does not revolve around you and your needs.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #146 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Wilkie View Post

It's not about "the feeling of a metropolitan realm", but rather limitations of space, resources, transit, and environmental concerns that lead the architectural community to largely favor metropolitan development.

In addition to that, culture and diversity are typically scarce in suburban areas relative to a city. It's considered to be a shame when company keeps all these talented, wealthy, and well-educated people cooped-up within the confines of a suburban setting, rather than mixed into a larger group that would greatly benefit from the presence of the type of people that work for a company like Apple.

While your comments are right in line with the status quo for urban architecture, I think you need to stop and "Think Different" for a moment. There are other ways to create urban environments that are advantageous. If you have ever been to So-Cal you might understand that the green space is more likely to attract people to take a break or two from the office and thus mix into the larger metropolitan environment. It will also attract employees of other businesses towards the campus for more mixing.
post #147 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Yep, we have more respect and protections for the environment than ~80% of nations, and we led the way (see my other posting about USA being first in most everything). So if fundamental mean stuff that Americans have believed in for most of our history, yes.

You should probably be quiet now. You are living in some sort of glorious history which does not reflect current US policy or reality.
post #148 of 306
I don't agree with the critic at all.

Of course the building should be away from the public to just walk up to. Do you think your average fat beer belly american with a fanny pack and sweat pants should be able to walk up tho the window where people are working?

The building is so huge the circular feeling of the walls will not be noticed I'm sure. There will be plenty of room for right angles within the building

The argument that it is reliant on cars also seems like a throw away comment. A square building would still be dependent on cars.

Finally, comparing it to designs of the 60's is a compliment if you ask me.
post #149 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

You've told us what shouldn't be done, pretty much anything they have planned now. Tell us what you would do specifically as far as location, shape, size, transportation etc. The devil is in the details.

He can't. He's part of the establishment that is blind to the fact that building a high density workplace in the middle of that suburban sprawl actually starts to reverse the trend of the purely suburban bedroom community.

The arguments made for urbanization ignore the living arrangement of the existing employees, many of whom already bike to work from the surrounding community. Those living out of bicycle distance are going to drive anyway, not because of where the building is but because of where they chose to live. Locating closer to the freeway actually will reduce the overall environmental impact of the longer distance drivers because they will not need to travel and make traffic on as many surface streets, but can shunt quickly into the garage. Slightly creative working hours can do wonders for managing traffic in and out of a facility like this, where smaller, dispersed, facilities won't feel the need and so add greatly to general surface street traffic.

Arguing a building is not green because it requires workers to get there is a bit overly dramatic and self-serving. Why aren't there calls for Cupertino and surrounding communities to use the additional property tax revenues towards something constructive like mass transit? This would be much more effective and will motivate future developments in the area to take advantage as well. This would further confound the anti-suburbanites though, because it again fails to demonize land that was considered subject to sprawl.

A question to all those non-sprawl proponents out there, where do we put all the people? In my lifetime the population of the US has gone from under 200 million to over 300 million, an over 50% increase. Sprawl isn't some artificial fleeing of the cities, it is a forced thing when the core cities are essentially built out and there is resistance to high density vertical development away from the city center. All the good intention in the world to concentrate population cannot win a nimby CEQA lawsuit against anything over three stories high, thus low density is a population enforced constraint despite all the architectural and psychological theory that says it is better to be denser in places.

Maybe the self-appointed architectural highbrow crowd needs to think about the real world and how to work with it when there is a wonderful opportunity to do so, rather than try to tear down an idea just because it doesn't fit with their chosen theoretical best choice.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #150 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

If it weren't for "liberals" there would be no Apple. For an example of "conservative" business thinking, look at Microsoft and Dell.

Microsoft is anything BUT conservative when you look at who and what they donate to!

Dell is typically conservative, and they appear to be quite good at what they decided to do. Boring? Maybe. But they have satisfied customers and black ink on their balance sheet.
post #151 of 306
I used to work in IBM's Watson Research Center building in Yorktown Heights, NY. That building is also circular, or rather an arc of a circle. It's quite a lot like a section cut out of Apple's spaceship.

I loved the Watson Research building. Walking along the curved halls next to the outside glass somehow felt like taking a promenade outdoors, I guess because when you look ahead of you you're looking through the glass rather than looking down the hall.

Within the offices you couldn't tell the building was curved.

One problem with the Watson Research building was that the convex curvature of the glass on the outside created a strong pressure differential between inside and outside when there was a breeze (by the Bernoulli effect). It sometimes made opening doors to the outside difficult. Presumably Apple will anticipate that.
post #152 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Yep, we have more respect and protections for the environment than ~80% of nations, and we led the way.

This is absolutely true.

However, the US is rapidly falling behind from its past, unequalled leadership position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

.... (see my other posting about USA being first in most everything).

This is nonsense.
post #153 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

If it weren't for "liberals" there would be no Apple. For an example of "conservative" business thinking, look at Microsoft and Dell.

EDIT: I am going to assume you were just joking.
post #154 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

While Im far from an expert on the subject Ive read a little about designing/structuring spaces to enhance particular ways humans interact with the environment.

The comment that this campus is not well integrated within the rest of the city is a valid point, but in all fairness which company really does that with their HQ now that secrecy is paramount to maintaining a competitive advantage?

The design is not bad its just emphasising internal rather than external collaboration. The low profile encourages people to walk between floors and office spaces rather than take elevators. And the circular shape encourages outdoor excursions by making them the shortest route between any two points.

The all glass exterior makes this less imposing. Much like Apple products, it doesnt pretend to fit into the existing landscape, but rather invite you into a new one.

Your comment paints the picture of the new campus very well. It would be interesting to see the elephant trails in the center after a few months.
post #155 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

LOL WUT? The parking IS underground

According to an AI article from three days ago "Apple has detailed plans to build a massive parking garage along the 280 freeway, although it's not clear if much of the structure would even be visible from the highway. San Francisco Chronicle architecture columnist John King described the structure in noting that "the parking garage would signal Apple's presence to I-280 commuters with a freeway-friendly sweep."

The new garage would be four stories and 1,440 feet (about 440 meters) in length, with spaces for 4,300 cars. That's 1,715 spaces larger than San Francisco's largest parking structure, the Fifth and Mission garage adjacent to Moscone West, where Apple holds its Worldwide Developer Conference each summer.


http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...cupertino.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #156 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

According to an AI article from three days ago "Apple has detailed plans to build a massive parking garage along the 280 freeway, although it's not clear if much of the structure would even be visible from the highway. San Francisco Chronicle architecture columnist John King described the structure in noting that "the parking garage would signal Apple's presence to I-280 commuters with a freeway-friendly sweep."

The new garage would be four stories and 1,440 feet (about 440 meters) in length, with spaces for 4,300 cars. That's 1,715 spaces larger than San Francisco's largest parking structure, the Fifth and Mission garage adjacent to Moscone West, where Apple holds its Worldwide Developer Conference each summer.


http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...cupertino.html

... plus an underground structure to hold another 4000+ vehicles. (as I noted in another post earlier today)
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #157 of 306
It's interesting in a totally laughable sort of way how these boards have developed a corp of instant but otherwise deeply committed architecture and city planning experts. How many of them, I wonder, have ever taken an interest in architecture or city planning before? My guess is approximately zero. And yet these instant experts know to the core of their beings that the new Apple campus is a great exercise in architecture and planning and nothing else could possibly be better. I wonder how many of them had even heard of Christopher Hawthorne before this article was posted here, let alone read his columns for years. My guess is approximately zero. And yet, they are convinced to within a millimeter of their lives that Hawthorne is a know-nothing hack. Their confidence and certainty about subjects and people they know nothing whatsoever about is almost inspirational.

Accordingly, I have decided to take up neurosurgery. I have heard of it, which should be enough. More than enough, given what I've read here.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #158 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

The best theory stays within the bounds of reality!

Ah, but there is where you fail to understand the critic or theorist, as they are basically cut from the same cloth. The "validity" of a theory is inversely proportional to it's grasp of what most folks would call "reality". Mind you, I'm not talking (really) about the so called hard sciences where we've invented the scientific method to try and tie theory to reality a bit closer. I'm talking about the arts and "softer" (hate that word) sciences where theories are only vaguely testable. Mainly because it's impossible to isolate all the variables. Economics, architecture, art, politics, etc.

In these areas, the less in touch with "reality" the better the theory must be. How can this be? Well, the logic goes like this: The reality of whatever the situation is is dirty, messy, and broken (economy, urban areas, government, etc). Any theory that actually deals with this reality will also, by association, wind up dirty, messy, and broken. To have a clean, workable, and "correct" theory, you must perforce remove your thinking "beyond" the broken reality to the plane of ideals where properly scholastic discussion can result in refining the ideas into something purer.

The critic is not concerned with plebeian concerns like what city the building is in, blah, blah, blah. The new campus does not fit well into the architectural theory of the "ideal" space. You could say that the critic is on crack, out of touch with reality, etc. But think about this. If no one has delineated what the "ideal" should be, how can we work towards that and away for the dirty, messy, and broken reality we currently have?

--MDG
post #159 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

It's interesting in a totally laughable sort of way how these boards have developed a corp of instant but otherwise deeply committed architecture and city planning experts. How many of them, I wonder, have ever taken an interest in architecture or city planning before? My guess is approximately zero. And yet these instant experts know to the core of their beings that the new Apple campus is a great exercise in architecture and planning and nothing else could possibly be better. I wonder how many of them had even heard of Christopher Hawthorne before this article was posted here, let alone read his columns for years. My guess is approximately zero. And yet, they are convinced to within a millimeter of their lives that Hawthorne is a know-nothing hack. Their confidence and certainty about subjects and people they know nothing whatsoever about is almost inspirational.

Accordingly, I have decided to take up neurosurgery. I have heard of it, which should be enough. More than enough, given what I've read here.

I read the whole article and I thought it was a bit of hackery. This in no way qualifies you to be a neurosurgeon.
post #160 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

It's interesting in a totally laughable sort of way how these boards have developed a corp of instant but otherwise deeply committed architecture and city planning experts. How many of them, I wonder, have ever taken an interest in architecture or city planning before? My guess is approximately zero. And yet these instant experts know to the core of their beings that the new Apple campus is a great exercise in architecture and planning and nothing else could possibly be better. I wonder how many of them had even heard of Christopher Hawthorne before this article was posted here, let alone read his columns for years. My guess is approximately zero. And yet, they are convinced to within a millimeter of their lives that Hawthorne is a know-nothing hack. Their confidence and certainty about subjects and people they know nothing whatsoever about is almost inspirational.

Accordingly, I have decided to take up neurosurgery. I have heard of it, which should be enough. More than enough, given what I've read here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

I read the whole article and I thought it was a bit of hackery. This in no way qualifies you to be a neurosurgeon.

I read it too. At the risk of being seen as self-aggrandizing here is the link to my previous post which addressed this:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=110
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › LA Times critic disparages Apple Campus 2 as 'retrograde cocoon'