LA Times critic disparages Apple Campus 2 as 'retrograde cocoon' - Page 5

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

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.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

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.

Originally Posted by Doctor David

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

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

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

Originally Posted by island hermit

More often than not I find your comments add not much of anything to the discussion.

Hawthorne's article is more of a review of an upcoming book (probably a friend) than it is a good example of a critique based on architectural theory.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

I'm so very sorry, especially since I'm probably the only one here with much actual knowledge of the subject. I often write long detailed posts on topics I know about, such as this one, only to have them ignored by people like you. This is not my fault.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

I'm so very sorry, especially since I'm probably the only one here with much actual knowledge of the subject. I often write long detailed posts on topics I know about, such as this one, only to have them ignored by people like you. This is not my fault.

Originally Posted by island hermit

Ignored... by people like me?? Do you even know who I am.

You're acting like some rude know nothing snob who feels that they are the only ones with any knowledge on any subject. If someone doesn't agree with you then you brush them off and demean anything that they are trying to say.

By the way... I seem to have missed your long detailed post on this topic...

[on edit - I'm absolutely positive that Michael Wilkie would make you look absolutely pathetic on this subject... sadly, he, like you, didn't offer the example that would be required to counterbalance this argument]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

No, I think we're talking complete gut reactions here from people with zero knowledge of the subject matter who nevertheless feel compelled to comment on it with total conviction. It's a strange phenomenon, would you not agree?

To the subject, I happen to think Hawthorne is right on the substance: the concept behind the campus is retrograde. I've said so before. I think he's also correct to pose the question of whether Steve is more interested in progressive ideas in architecture and city planning, or of building a monument to himself. I suspect more the latter. The fact that Hawthorne raised this uncomfortable question seems to offend some, to the point of lashing out. I am amused, to tears.

Originally Posted by Doctor David

Dr Millmoss is late to the disussion and itching for an argument. Again.

Originally Posted by Doctor David

Dr Millmoss is late to the disussion and itching for an argument. Again.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Oh my, why not unleash all the usual generic insults? Sure beats having to make an actual argument.

We've had at least three threads on this subject already. So I guess you did miss them. You could look them up.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Sorry again for not making this my job. Third thread on this topic, at least. I've commented on the others extensively.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

I do agree, to a point. But that phenomenon is not unique to this thread nor this website. AI is no worse in this regard, and I find somewhat better than most as to the proportion of intelligent to inane remarkage.

I like your second paragraph above. But I maintain that Hawthorne's claim that Steve was pawning off the building's design as his own is specious at best. He also spends a lot of time characterizing a meeting that he offers no evidence that he actually attended. He actually cites Gawker as a source. I found myself wondering if he visited the building site, or even set foot in Cupertino--as a reader of such a strongly opinionated piece I should not have to.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Sorry again for not making this my job. Third thread on this topic, at least. I've commented on the others extensively.

Originally Posted by Hiro

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.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

It'd be nice if we could get back to the subject.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

You're right, I wasn't claiming this site to be unique, but it seems to have even more binary thinkers than average.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

I didn't get the impression that Hawthorne was saying that Steve was trying to say that he designed the building himself, more that it was being presented as another Apple product for which Steve was ultimately responsible. He didn't have to attend the meeting, it was all on video online. The City Council did indeed provide a reception not even bordering on sycophantic -- it was well over the line. Fair points.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber


Hawthorne goes quite a bit beyond merely equating the building to another Apple product devised by Steve. He says the council should have asked: "Who's your architect?" In the context of what follows he is clearly goading. Fine to pose the question of an "edifice" complex, but in my opinion he goes farther than necessary. It is the vehemence with which he makes his point that stinks of meanness.

Originally Posted by Imkman

You sound like a women who can't navigate a car lol

Stay off the roads please, perhaps take the bus to your boxed factory job where you feel safe not using your brain.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

No, I think we're talking complete gut reactions here from people with zero knowledge of the subject matter who nevertheless feel compelled to comment on it with total conviction. It's a strange phenomenon, would you not agree?

Originally Posted by John.B

Architecture, by it's nature, tends to be a very public art/science. Do you really think you need a degree in Architecture to be qualified to judge the aesthetic of a building in it's environment?

Originally Posted by photoshop59

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.

Originally Posted by Sierrajeff

Very well said. The new campus is perfect for what it is - a suburban office campus - but I'd like to think that Apple could do more than simply perfect an existing solution; I'd like to think they could come up with something that breaks the mold.

Originally Posted by rbryanh

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.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Nor you as an architectural critic, but I guess you missed my point.



I wasn't actually defending Hawthorne specifically, but more the concept of being able to judge the quality if his criticism given no knowledge of his work or the work he writes about. I've been reading his stuff for years, and although I have never been especially impressed (LA deserves someone of the caliber of Paul Goldberger), I don't think he's a complete slouch either. No, I think we're talking complete gut reactions here from people with zero knowledge of the subject matter who nevertheless feel compelled to comment on it with total conviction. It's a strange phenomenon, would you not agree?

To the subject, I happen to think Hawthorne is right on the substance: the concept behind the campus is retrograde. I've said so before. I think he's also correct to pose the question of whether Steve is more interested in progressive ideas in architecture and city planning, or of building a monument to himself. I suspect more the latter. The fact that Hawthorne raised this uncomfortable question seems to offend some, to the point of lashing out. I am amused, to tears.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

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.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

I wasn't actually defending Hawthorne specifically, but more the concept of being able to judge the quality if his criticism given no knowledge of his work or the work he writes about. I've been reading his stuff for years, and although I have never been especially impressed (LA deserves someone of the caliber of Paul Goldberger), I don't think he's a complete slouch either. No, I think we're talking complete gut reactions here from people with zero knowledge of the subject matter who nevertheless feel compelled to comment on it with total conviction. It's a strange phenomenon, would you not agree?

Originally Posted by tyler82

An Angelino critiquing architecture and urban planning.

Originally Posted by John.B

Architecture, by it's nature, tends to be a very public art/science. Do you really think you need a degree in Architecture to be qualified to judge the aesthetic of a building in it's environment?

Originally Posted by jragosta

That's pretty standard for this forum and other similar forums. It's amazing seeing the nonsense posted by people who don't have even the most basic concept of a topic. Financial topics are particularly humorous when people who can't even balance their own checkbooks are trying to tell Apple what do do with its money.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

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.

Originally Posted by Doctor David

Guess I can't blame you for timing. It's the spoiling for an argument part that sticks out. Must be baggage from those other threads.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

That's really the only purpose of my posting, since the subject itself has been debated at length several times.

Originally Posted by Hiro

You're only as good as your last article. His writing indicates he decided he didn't like the project and then tried to justify it. That is independent of any architectural prowess he has. When a professional writer makes that big a gaffe and tries to paper over it with out-of-touch writing he deserves to be called on it. You and the rest of the architectural community can handle him and his technical points, but when he writes that transparently he does your whole field a disservice.

Have you actually read the article itself? The first half of it is a slightly jealously toned paparazzi/entertainment fluff piece, not good critical architectural journalism in the least. Tounge-in-cheek reporting on what Gawker said, of all things to include. WTF? I don't care how professional one's reputation is, that kind of evidence shows a loss of perspective throwing the entirety of the remainder into serious question.

He does follow with a couple paragraphs best summarized as being frustrated he does not know the name of the architect. This flat out smacks of elitism. Inspired work, or even merely good work does not have to come from a recognized name. He should concentrate on the designs merits itself rather than lament that a big name was not invoked publically.

Then he transitions into a book report on Pastoral Capitalism which apparently laments the flight from the cities. Civic space, as I can understand from the books jacket and many other architectural readings tends to sound lovely, but I can think of very very few examples where I would recognize it as something that survived very long as a viable system. Color me a realist, but those four paragraphs did little to actually convince me of his justifications. His choice of a book quote in the last paragraph of those shows he is idealistic when it comes to the "collective metropolitan realm" we seem to be held responsible for. Has he ever hear of the Problem of the Commons? If he has he either forgot it, otherwise he couldn't possibly have chosen that quote in isolation, or he choses to ignore it which I would consider worse. The Problem of the Commons is on of the main psychological drivers that contributes to common spaces decay. I "somebody" does not own it, "everybody" tends to not value it properly over time.

Then he hedges a bit, "The rise of Los Angeles over the last century is itself a powerful argument against the idea that low-rise development precludes the kind of vitality or diversity we associate with the most progressive cities." Now he has just said, yeah, but... It is positioned as an escape clause at the very end of the article designed to try lend enough intellectual cover to deflect criticism by way of seeming unbiased. The problem there is in order to actually write in an unbiased manner you need to include both points up front, and clearly lend equal treatment, something he did not do so I do not give any substantial weight to his escape clause.

He is also shallow of wit and misses a very Apple-esque entendre he, apparently inadvertently, created in his own writing. The closing tone is dismissive but what is "one very long hallway connecting endlessly with itself"?

Wait for it.

Wait for it.

But an Infinite Loop maybe??



There was precious little discourse on the merits of the design or why he characterized aspects as he did. No mention at all of greenspace or that this project is infill, not additional sprawl at the edge. Just basic suburban is bad, civic is good. That counts as out of touch to me.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Yes of course I read the article, but I didn't find any gaffe. Perhaps you can point that out. He also did not claim to not know the name of the architect. In fact he discussed the architect at some length. The point he was making is perhaps being misunderstood. Normally, the involvement of a rock star architect of the caliber of Norman Foster takes center stage in any presentation on a building his firm has designed. It is indeed odd that Steve failed to even mention Foster, and odder yet that Apple still officially won't confirm that the architect for the project is Foster. I think it's fair to ask whether rock star technologist Steve Jobs believes his fame trumps rock architect Norman Foster. To the gearheads who populate these boards, the answer is obvious -- but then, that's just a function of their domain of knowledge (one that does not include architecture).

America's love-hate relationship with urbanism is a long and complicated story, going back to the founding of the nation. Probably not worth going into here at length, but Hawthorne is right to introduce this tension in his opinion piece if only because the new Apple campus very clearly retrogrades to an anti-urbanism approach that has been losing favor with architects, planners -- and yes, even the public -- for thirty years or more. It is ironic that Apple may be building one of the last great monuments to the 1970s. If you'd never thought about architecture and planning before, probably this would have never crossed your mind. But it is true nonetheless. Not elitist, and hardly out of touch. It is simply true.

In addition to being a functional part of our lives, architecture is a form of symbolism. It speaks to and about who we are. Apple and Steve are clearly conscious of the symbolism of this building, so why deny it? So it is hardly out of bounds for Hawthorne interpret the architectural symbolism of the design. That's part of an architectural critic's job. But again, if you'd never taken any interest in architecture before this, you'd hardly be expected to know that would you?