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 5

post #161 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 visit and read comments on architectural websites (Architectural Record). Many remarks here show more insight.
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #162 of 306
Why are you sharing this with us??
post #163 of 306
Just like an industrial designer, an architect needs to be "not good enough" pushed to come up with a truly magical solution. So far, I see an extremely competent proposal that hopefully will evolve into a 3 a.m. iPhone equivalent idea.
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #164 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.

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.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #165 of 306
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.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

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

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.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #166 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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.

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.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #167 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.

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]
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #168 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.

Dr Millmoss is late to the disussion and itching for an argument. Again.
post #169 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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]

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.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #170 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.

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.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #171 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

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

Sorry again for not making this my job. Third thread on this topic, at least. I've commented on the others extensively.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #172 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

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

I absolutely hate it when someone starts talking theory (or talking out of their ass) and then gives nothing in return as a concrete example of what they are portraying.

There are so many factors involved in Apple's decision and I see none of those factors in either Hawthorne's or Millmoss' comments. If they feel that Apple could have done better in this day and age then I'd really like them to lay it out and tell us how they would address all of the problems facing Apple as it tries to house its expanding workforce (ie. traffic, location, theactual building(s)).
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #173 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.

You gave me nothing to argue... just your usual rude comments.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #174 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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

So you just posted so as to be rude to people. Nice.

If you have nothing to offer other than insults why not just stay off the thread.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #175 of 306
It'd be nice if we could get back to the subject.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #176 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

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.

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

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.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #177 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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

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.
post #178 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

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.

Yes! Thank you!
post #179 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

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

Okay... let's start over with a link to the open letter... a much better critique of the campus than the one provided by Hawthorne. At the very least the open letter from Hillel Schocken gives us a proposition as to what should be built.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...26#post1900626

I'm still not sure if some of that theory would work... there'd sure be a hell of a lot more problems for council to chew on... and maybe time is of the essence.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #180 of 306
An Angelino critiquing architecture and urban planning.
post #181 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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

Noting wrong with the extreme binary thinking here. After all, that's what could lead to the dialectic.

I learn little from arguments involving shades of gray. They leave me bored.
post #182 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.

Fair points as well.

But I believe that for such a piece (the headline article on the front page of the arts section), the subject being the keynote building of one of the most important companies in the world, in Hawthorne's home state, that journalistic integrity dictated that more than secondary and tertiary reporting was in order. Especially given overtly negative tone. Perhaps the Times, like all major newspapers, is in such deep financial doo-doo that they couldn't reimburse him for the tank or two of gas it would have taken the author to do primary research. Why bother to send reporters to cover Obama's speeches? They can be seen online.

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.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #183 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


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.

Goading seems to be a common trait among the people who believe in the theory that Hawthorne brings forward.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #184 of 306
Definitely, this is a building that looks inward, in isolation. It is a cloister, a monastery. That's the whole point of the design.

Given that, there is nothing wrong with the design. The question regarding this cocoon would be its intent, not its execution, which is clearly top-notch.

But is this really a matter for an architectural critic? Yes, actually. Critics deal with intent all the time. Still, the interesting question here is: What will a building like this do to the people in it? How will it affect their relationships with each other and with the rest of the world? How, even, will it affect the way they relate to the rest of Apple, the folks left outside the "inner circle", so to speak?

One notable feature: it is not at all obvious where the CEO would sit in a building like this, or where the lowest ranking employees would go. There is no corner office and no dark innards. A window or skylight is never far away.

This building is a very strong management decision, articulated in terms of architectural design. Much as I loathe car dependency (to me the worst single problem here), I don't think many people are qualified to second-guess Steve Jobs (Who's his architect? Come on, who do do you think!) on this thing. If he wants a Tibetan monastery, I am sure he thought about it deeply and has his reasons.

Time will tell if he is right or wrong, but his experiment should proceed as planned.
post #185 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imkman View Post

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.

And you, dear sir, sound like a jerk.

The OP only stated he personally wouldn't like to work in such environment, and best argument you can reply with is handful of lame sexist insults?

Really? Nothing more substantial in there..?
post #186 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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?

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?

  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 #187 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

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?

The good doctor doesn't believe that the public should be allowed opinions ... opinions are reserved only for those who he deems to have the knowledge necessary to make a proper assessment of the situation.

Contrary to that opinion, Cupertino actually held the first public meeting last Thursday, asking the citizens how they feel about the new Campus. I don't believe that Hawthorne was invited.

All I ever asked from those who find our discussion naive and uneducated was to give me a real world example of the type of environment/architecture that Hawthorne espouses. I was offered nothing, nada, zero. Of course this is due to laziness on their part. All they had to do was search a very tiny wee bit and they would have found another development very close to Cupertino. Salesforce wants to house 8000 employees and they are going to do it in an urban setting at Mission Bay.

https://www.salesforce.com/company/n.../06/110606.jsp

http://www.flickr.com/photos/salesfo...7626855992450/

See guys... that wasn't that hard. If you're going to talk theory then just provide an example so all of us dunce's can understand.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #188 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.

I think it's large enough that the actual curvature will be pretty small.
post #189 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

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.

I'm late to this party... which BTW has been a pretty darn good read considering it's an open forum(!)

However, the above quote required my asking, "Why?".

Truth is that Apple hasn't really ever broken any mold per se with any of their products or thinking. They HAVE refined basic shapes and aesthetics, that is all, an whittle everything down to it's bare essentials and usefulness, thereby creating a simple, easy to understand product or experience.

This new campus embodies that philosophy IMO. Someone mentioned a Gehry-inspired design. While I love his ideas, his (most famous) designs and style, does in no way accentuate the values of Apple. Quite the opposite. In fact if he would have been commissioned, and even if Jobs and Co. would have went with it... you would have not been able to hear yourself think over the blogosphere-chatter headlines: "Jobs Creates His Cathedral for Apple Worshipers".

As others have stated above, the LA critique has it's points, but it fails to be relevant in this very special case as it relates to Apple, it's current location, it's history, and Jobs' very (un)unique philosophy. Before the flamers come out, I am not criticizing Jobs in the least! I credit him with "bringing back" into fashion, tasteful, timeless and accessible organic design. That amidst the pompous and over-decorative Disney-fication of typical American design, was quite a feat in itself.

With this new campus, he stays true to his personal... and rather successful... beliefs.

That is all.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #190 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.

Can you please point me to ANYWHERE in nature where there are perfect "right-angles" ?!

I can only assume that you were prematurely born and in an incubation chamber similar to this for far too long.

Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #191 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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?

I agree... but that does not preclude the abilities that many of the posters here have shared with us. There is no right or wrong, just OPINIONS.

BTW: I do believe Apple (and Jobs in particular) has made a bloody fortune on "gut reactions" and instinct. As we have also witnessed, not ALL gut instincts have been fruitful, certainly not at once, to the expectations of an "instant satisfaction and gratification" population that is, dare I say, the American norm.

Quote:
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.

And lets just say that you are correct in your assumption of Steve Jobs building a monument to himself. Should he wait until someone else presupposes his ideals, and messes it up spectacularly? Because I do believe he deserves a monument, and there will surely be many the day he is no longer with us.

Can it be that you are jeolous? Is it so very hard to except the fact that the man, surely not simple, and absolutely not humble... will go down in American history as one of the greatest innovators of our age? Too tough for ya?

You may need psychological help in realistically defining those tears you're shedding. That was an opinion BTW. No I am not a therapist, so please disregard any advice you may have perceived in my opinionated suggestion.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #192 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.

As usual, Millmoss demonstrates a fundamental lack of sound reasoning ability. This time around, he's unable to even make a sound analogy.

If you chose to take up theorizing about the benefits and drawbacks of various neurosurgical procedures, then you'd be engaged in a somewhat analogous activity; no one here actually proposed a building design. The fact that you can't grasp the difference, effectively disqualifies you as an "authority".
post #193 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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?

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

An Angelino critiquing architecture and urban planning.

That pretty much sums up the entire topic. +1

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

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?

One doesn't need a degree in Architecture (or Art, for that matter) to judge the aesthetic of a building. But that's not the issue here. People (including the hack journalist who started this whole thing) are arguing that the building us UNSUITABLE, not ugly. To judge the suitability of a building, you SHOULD understand at least the basic principles of how architecture fits with its environment and, more importantly, the needs of the user.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #194 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

It's pretty shitty, though, to come onto a thread and snipe at people and then not even have the decency to actually argue your point, hiding behind some past argument (which didn't really exist in the context suggested, btw).

Anyone can argue theory... no degrees necessary. This is why they hold public meetings to address concerns about developments in cities.

Sadly, this thread stopped just as it could have got interesting. I provided links to the Salesforce development in Mission Bay as a contrast to the Apple campus. I think it would make a great topic to compare the pros and cons of each development.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #195 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.

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.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #196 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

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.

Yeah, that's a fair observation (along with some terrible crap currently going on in my own life which only serves to limit my tolerance for irritating behavior). But the bottom line is, I get really weary all this instant authority being expressed by people who clearly never thought about a subject before in their lives, and likely wouldn't be now if Apple wasn't involved. I went through this same BS in many threads on the demo of Steve's historic home. I spent a lot of time trying to patiently explain how this all works (since it is my actual profession), only to have a corp of dedicated jackasses do their denial dance, telling me that my knowledge of the subject actually disqualified me from expressing an opinion. For some people, knowledge can't be allowed to get in the way of having an opinion.

Much the same thing is happening here. People who'd never heard of Christopher Hawthorne and have probably never read a single work of architectural criticism in their lives, now know with certainty that he's a first order hack. One poster even attacked him for citing a book on a relevant subject, as if the more knowledge and expertise he brings to the party, the less valid is his opinion. More of the same. When ignorance is taken as empowerment, I think it's an overwhelmingly sad state of affairs. That's really the only purpose of my posting, since the subject itself has been debated at length several times.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #197 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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

Oh bullshit. You didn't debate this subject at all. You posted one comment and nobody challenged what you had to say and that was that. The argument you had about the council meeting was entirely unrelated to this subject and you were caught making up information to strengthen your cause.

So now you're making up stories to make it look as if you have exhausted this topic. If you're so damn smart why have you no sense of discourse.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #198 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

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.

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?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #199 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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?

I thought the time Hawthorne spent on the ego battle of who gets credit a waste of time and space that could have been spent on the merits (or lack thereof) of this building.
post #200 of 306
I think that if the transportation issue had been handled better by Apple and Cupertino then we wouldn't be hearing all of this crap.

[on edit: worth a read are articles about circular buildings... it sounds like Steve might want to rethink this idea before it's too late]
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
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'