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 6

post #201 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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.

Me too.
post #202 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

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.

We don't know whether any ego battle has taken place, so I think that's a misinterpretation of the issue. All major buildings have a backstory. These buildings are very much about the people who finance, design and build them. Then we live with the decisions made by these individuals, in a very real and tangible fashion, sometimes for a century or more. The result is not an abstraction, it's literally a concrete reality. So no, discussing the personal dynamics behind how the design was conceived is hardly a waste of space. In fact I would say that this topic will be hotly debated among people who are interested in such things for many years to come. It's very much in the nature of major buildings for this to occur.

I believe Hawthorne was quite clear about his opinion on the merits of the building. He thinks it's a throwback and a wasted opportunity. I happen to agree, and not because he said it. I said very much the same thing weeks ago in other threads on this subject, for many of the same reasons he stated in his piece. But we can wait patiently for an alternative view to emerge from the architecture and planning communities. I have yet to see one. Perhaps if you do, you can point us to it.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #203 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

Me too.

I doubt it. The transportation problems are inherent with the concept.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #204 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.

Normally, the main point of interest about a building built for gray suits and a gray corporation would be the architect. Not the case here. Steve Jobs is a household name, Norman Foster, not so much.

Not odd at all that Apple won't officially confirm anything. That seems to be their default position on everything. Especially unreleased products, and unreleased buildings too evidently.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #205 of 306
.

Robin Huber Quote:

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

.

island hermit Quote:

Ayn Rand has a heart?

..................

Good, least few of you know who Howard Roark is ...

And you may even possess the potential to discuss Ayn Rand ?
As well as her views on 'Arches' ?




Let's not go into all that now, but here's a question ...

Wonder if Rand would consider Steve Jobs as one of her 'Heros' ?
He and Roark do have a lot in common
(so to speak)

No need to answer, just something to Think Different about



.

Now ...

Others of you keep commenting - 'This sucks and that sucks'

We'll assume you're new to Mac Family
And still using your Windoze way of 'Thinking Same and Shallow'
(so to speak)



.

(is ok, we love you anyway)



.
post #206 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

Clearly, he's out of touch with the general public, so why should we give his opinion any additional weight beyond that of an individual who doesn't live in the area?

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #207 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC Kelly View Post

.

And you may even possess the potential to discuss Ayn Rand ?
As well as her views on 'Arches' ?

Wonder if Rand would consider Steve Jobs as one of her 'Heros' ?
He and Roark do have a lot in common
(so to speak).

Sorry, not elite enough to even attempt to grapple with the world-class intellect of Ms. Rand.

As far as Steve being one of her heroes? Unless he suddenly morphs into Joe McCarthy, I doubt it.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #208 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

We don't know whether any ego battle has taken place, so I think that's a misinterpretation of the issue. All major buildings have a backstory. These buildings are very much about the people who finance, design and build them. Then we live with the decisions made by these individuals, in a very real and tangible fashion, sometimes for a century or more. The result is not an abstraction, it's literally a concrete reality. So no, discussing the personal dynamics behind how the design was conceived is hardly a waste of space. In fact I would say that this topic will be hotly debated among people who are interested in such things for many years to come. It's very much in the nature of major buildings for this to occur.

I believe Hawthorne was quite clear about his opinion on the merits of the building. He thinks it's a throwback and a wasted opportunity. I happen to agree, and not because he said it. I said very much the same thing weeks ago in other threads on this subject, for many of the same reasons he stated in his piece. But we can wait patiently for an alternative view to emerge from the architecture and planning communities. I have yet to see one. Perhaps if you do, you can point us to it.

I meant the ego battle that Hawthorne brought up about Jobs and Apple not identifying the architect to his satisfaction. You alluded to it also in talking about rock star architects. I don't think I misinterpreted anything.
post #209 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I doubt it. The transportation problems are inherent with the concept.

Are the transportation problems inherent to the concept or are they inherent to Cupertino?

Don't forget... Steve said that he doesn't want to leave Cupertino.

Forgetting all of the symbolism etc.... would any other concept (ie. the Salesforce project) alleviate the transportation issue at this site? Would Apple have to leave Cupertino to address the transportation issue?
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #210 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Sorry, not elite enough to even attempt to grapple with the world-class intellect of Ms. Rand.

As far as Steve being one of her heroes? Unless he suddenly morphs into Joe McCarthy, I doubt it.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
--John Rogers
post #211 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Normally, the main point of interest about a building built for gray suits and a gray corporation would be the architect. Not the case here. Steve Jobs is a household name, Norman Foster, not so much.

Not odd at all that Apple won't officially confirm anything. That seems to be their default position on everything. Especially unreleased products, and unreleased buildings too evidently.

El Economista disclosed the partnership between Apple and Foster back at the end of November 2010... so it was old news by the time that the June meeting took place.

http://www.eleconomista.es/empresas-...Cupertino.html
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #212 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Normally, the main point of interest about a building built for gray suits and a gray corporation would be the architect. Not the case here. Steve Jobs is a household name, Norman Foster, not so much.

Not odd at all that Apple won't officially confirm anything. That seems to be their default position on everything. Especially unreleased products, and unreleased buildings too evidently.

It may be standard operating procedure in an Apple context, but it is very odd in the context of architecture. That was my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

I meant the ego battle that Hawthorne brought up about Jobs and Apple not identifying the architect to his satisfaction. You alluded to it also in talking about rock star architects. I don't think I misinterpreted anything.

I think you missed something, or I did. I found no reference or even inference in Hawthorne's column to an "ego battle." The context was more what you suggested above, which is that Apple/Steve are secretive by reflex, even when it comes to a building. It is noteworthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
--John Rogers

Good one. Fortunately I waited until adulthood to read that book, and consequently had a great laugh all the way through.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #213 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Are the transportation problems inherent to the concept or are they inherent to Cupertino?

Don't forget... Steve said that he doesn't want to leave Cupertino.

Forgetting all of the symbolism etc.... would any other concept (ie. the Salesforce project) alleviate the transportation issue at this site? Would Apple have to leave Cupertino to address the transportation issue?

These are very good questions.
post #214 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
--John Rogers

Thank you for the best laugh I've had all day!

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #215 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

It may be standard operating procedure in an Apple context, but it is very odd in the context of architecture. That was my point.



I think you missed something, or I did. I found no reference or even inference in Hawthorne's column to an "ego battle." The context was more what you suggested above, which is that Apple/Steve are secretive by reflex, even when it comes to a building. It is noteworthy.



Good one. Fortunately I waited until adulthood to read that book, and consequently had a great laugh all the way through.

"... 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..."-Dr Millmoss

Your wondering who's rock star fame trumps the other. I got the impression Hawthorne thought the same thing. That is an ego battle to me. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
post #216 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

Thank you for the best laugh I've had all day!

Had the same effect on me. Glad you enjoyed it.
post #217 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I believe Hawthorne was quite clear about his opinion on the merits of the building. He thinks it's a throwback and a wasted opportunity. I happen to agree, and not because he said it. I said very much the same thing weeks ago in other threads on this subject, for many of the same reasons he stated in his piece. But we can wait patiently for an alternative view to emerge from the architecture and planning communities. I have yet to see one. Perhaps if you do, you can point us to it.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to restate your objections succinctly here, rather than referring to them abstractly? Or do you wish that we do the research into your posts of "weeks ago"?

I don't think the debate should be framed in this urban vs. suburban dialectic at all, for the following reasons:

Apple needs to build a campus (not a "headquarters") for 12,000 post-sixties, but still countercultural, eco-minded team members (not "employees") who will presumably look forward to going to work every day to carry out the next revolution in technology that the company is clearly committed to pulling off.

They need the hive they work in to be human scaled and immersed in nature, and not to seem like a hive at all, but more of an Arcadian academy. I think people calling it a "mothership" are catching the spirit of this temple of innovation. Why all the nature? It keeps us human. Apple designs for humans.

Cupertino is what it is, half-urban, half-suburban. Apple bought the land and will so greatly improve the use of over HP's asphalt and stucco rectilinear nightmare (which is conventional techno-business "architecture" of the past) that I find it completely mean spirited not to acknowledge this part of the plan. Worse, confusing what Apple is doing with some sinister "sylvan corporatism" is being small-mindedly doctrinaire. Ordinary companies may need to retreat into a fortress from a hostile world, but Apple needs to stay completely focused on what real people want and need, even before they themselves, the buyers, know what that might be, as has often been pointed out.

The glass torus is meant to be functionally immersed in nature. Or rather, to keep the designers of the future immersed in nature. It is not a monument at all, it's another Apple ecosystem. They are doing something new here: establishing a world-focused academy of design. And there are no signs that it's a corporate or Jobsian ego-statement. At all. It's function as a creativity enhancer is transparent.

When their transportation plans come out, the urban-planning experts will have some input.

How it redefines urban or suburban space is an academic side issue.
post #218 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
--John Rogers

Priceless, the last word on the subject, and hilarious. Thank you. Where did you find it?

Edit: found the source, but not the exact context:

http://home.pacifier.com/~ascott/they/quotesr.htm Scroll to "Rogers"
post #219 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Priceless, the last word on the subject, and hilarious. Thank you. Where did you find it?

Edit: found the source, but not the exact context:

http://home.pacifier.com/~ascott/they/quotesr.htm

That's better than my memory will provide
I'm sure glad I found it though. Talk of Ayn Rand makes me want to cram a pencil in my ear.
post #220 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

That's better than my memory will provide
I'm sure glad I found it though. Talk of Ayn Rand makes me want to cram a pencil in my ear.



Interesting that you need jam one ear only, not both.

I truly believe that Objectivism (hah!) represents the triumph of the left brain over the right, to a pathological degree.

And alot ofl the pathology of the twentieth century is embodied in it. I wonder how Nathaniel Branden's books are selling these days . . .

On topic, I also think the drama over this Apple campus is one between left-brainers and right-brainers. Critics who write tend to be lefties.

Edit: And Hawthorne's ego-based marveling over Jobs's omission of the architects is another flaming misreading. Jobs hates the star system. He's long past that sort of ego fixation. All design is a team effort -- a basic Buddhist position.

Though he may still claim the core concept for himself, without crowing about it. Better to just say nothing.

Edit2: Gruber has a link to a newly banned anti-iPhone game, that really targets Apple as a global eco-villian. So soon we will be having a philosophical debate on how Apple is directing or misdirecting our future. At least I hope we have such a debate. It is the topic of the century, so far. The mothership should be framed in this debate, not the obsolete urban/anti-urban paradigm. That is the real "retrograde" in this building controversy.
post #221 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).

My point is who cares who the rock star architect is other than name droppers or those in the field? I find it pretentious when someone claims my ____ will be ____ because it will be designed by ____, sight unseen. Hawthorne was way to caught up in that rather than the design itself.

Quote:
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.

I'd have to disagree here. The project doesn't break any new architectural barriers, fine, but that hardly makes it not work with it's surroundings. And the comparisons to clear-cut paved office parks only shows a lack of context. It is a big freaking building, sited to not overshadow the surrounding community or impose it's bulk over too close neighbors. Pulling that off and making the building something other than a box is a nice thing. Who cares if it's not a revolutionary thing.

Quote:
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?

Quite pretentious to assume I have no prior interest in architecture. I'm not an architect, and I haven't studied it, but that is a long way away from not having a working relationship with design, psychology and how they inform each other. I find much of the architectural discussion here ignores the realities of that interplay as it sits in the actual context of infill and what could have gone there or what was there.

I see a case of one pretentious person writing a hack of an article, mainly because they want to throw a hissy fit over not being told who is designing an office building. And that said office building is not some magical breakthrough that ignores the existing city, site and infrastructure. That isn't an inditement of Architecture, it is an indication that a person who considers themselves architecturally astute is out of touch with reality -- something an architect cannot blindly ignore for sake of a favorite -ism theory.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #222 of 306
I agree that it is quite odd that Jobs does not acknowledge Foster's involvement in the project. I am reminded of Jonas Salk's collaboration with architect Lois Kahn on the Salk Institute. Neither would have ever dreamed of "dis"crediting the other. It is noteworthy that the idea for the plaza between the two wings is (anecdotally) Salk's.

The quality of the result speaks for itself: Salk Institute is one of the great works of architecture and is universally loved. Apple's Spaceship will likely be forgotten at best, and judging by the early returns, reviled by some.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #223 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Apple's Spaceship will likely be forgotten at best, and judging by the early returns, reviled by some.

Be careful. The Vietnam War memorial was widely reviled when it was announced. Now it is iconic. Even inspired the victim inscriptions on the new 9/11 memorial.

I would also add that one must judge the product, not the plan. There is something about being in the space, in the presence, that cannot be duplicated by even 3D walk throughs. The scale, and the human dimension, even the presence of other people are vital to success or failure. The map is not the territory.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #224 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Edit2: Gruber has a link to a newly banned anti-iPhone game, that really targets Apple as a global eco-villian. So soon we will be having a philosophical debate on how Apple is directing or misdirecting our future. At least I hope we have such a debate. It is the topic of the century, so far. The mothership should be framed in this debate, not the obsolete urban/anti-urban paradigm. That is the real "retrograde" in this building controversy.

How the heck did it get approved for the market to begin with? Someone obviously not looking at it very closely.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #225 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

I agree that it is quite odd that Jobs does not acknowledge Foster's involvement in the project. I am reminded of Jonas Salk's collaboration with architect Lois Kahn on the Salk Institute. Neither would have ever dreamed of "dis"crediting the other. It is noteworthy that the idea for the plaza between the two wings is (anecdotally) Salk's.

The quality of the result speaks for itself: Salk Institute is one of the great works of architecture and is universally loved. Apple's Spaceship will likely be forgotten at best, and judging by the early returns, reviled by some.

I will make a drama-queenish, arrogant prediction of my own:

The building will be loved passionately by the people who work there, which is all that really matters, since it's intended to be the greatest possible place to work.

Not an egoic statement for fawning admiration; rather a place to design "great products for people."

If they offer weekend tours, they will be booked in advance for months.
post #226 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

These are very good questions.

Sadly, the other doctor won't respond to them... probably because I'm too stupid to understand his answers.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #227 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Be careful. The Vietnam War memorial was widely reviled when it was announced. Now it is iconic. Even inspired the victim inscriptions on the new 9/11 memorial.

I would also add that one must judge the product, not the plan. There is something about being in the space, in the presence, that cannot be duplicated by even 3D walk throughs. The scale, and the human dimension, even the presence of other people are vital to success or failure. The map is not the territory.

Good points I am pretty far out on a limb with my prediction of failure - but isn't that what these forums are for?

I did however like Maya Lin's proposal long before it was completed. In a funny way it is quite humble. Kinda the opposite of the updated 70s bombastic design that this appears to be. But we will see.

Have you seen the 9/11 memorial yet?

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #228 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I will make a drama-queenish, arrogant prediction of my own:

The building will be loved passionately by the people who work there, which is all that really matters, since it's intended to be the greatest possible place to work.

Not an egoic statement for fawning admiration; rather a place to design "great products for people."

If they offer weekend tours, they will be booked in advance for months.

The food better be good in the cafeteria or Apple's screwed...
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #229 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Good points I am pretty far out on a limb with my prediction of failure - but isn't that what these forums are for?

I did however like Maya Lin's proposal long before it was completed. In a funny way it is quite humble. Kinda the opposite of the updated 70s bombastic design that this appears to be. But we will see.

Have you seen the 9/11 memorial yet?

I'm curious... bombastic how?

I thought it was understated just because of the fact that nobody will be able to see it in its entirety unless you view it from the air. If it was put on high ground for everyone to see then I'd have to agree about it being bombastic.

I guess this falls under the category of, "If a tree falls in the forest etc.".
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #230 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I'm curious... bombastic how?

I thought it was understated just because of the fact that nobody will be able to see it in its entirety unless you view it from the air. If it was put on high ground for everyone to see then I'd have to agree about it being bombastic.

I guess this falls under the category of, "If a tree falls in the forest etc.".

Bombastic isn't the word. Its different enough from any other corporate campus that I'm sure lots of interesting adjectives will get thrown at it. I'm excited to see this huge apple creation when it's done. From what we've seen, the drawings, I'd say they are going to try to change the UX of a large building. It's what they do on a bits and bites level. For the past almost 30 years they've worked to apply the metaphor of a desktop to a computer screen, this project will just have actual desks.
All in all I expect this to be a very apple like project. From the design to people's reactions both pro and con.
post #231 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

"... 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..."-Dr Millmoss

Your wondering who's rock star fame trumps the other. I got the impression Hawthorne thought the same thing. That is an ego battle to me. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I wasn't implying any sort of ego battle between Jobs and Foster, and I did not think Hawthorne was either. This implies to me that the two men are competing with each other for publicity or credit. This could be going on behind the scenes I suppose, but I doubt it.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #232 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

My point is who cares who the rock star architect is other than name droppers or those in the field? I find it pretentious when someone claims my ____ will be ____ because it will be designed by ____, sight unseen. Hawthorne was way to caught up in that rather than the design itself.

People who are interested in architecture care. Some architects, a handful, have made important contributions to architecture.

Quote:
I'd have to disagree here. The project doesn't break any new architectural barriers, fine, but that hardly makes it not work with it's surroundings. And the comparisons to clear-cut paved office parks only shows a lack of context. It is a big freaking building, sited to not overshadow the surrounding community or impose it's bulk over too close neighbors. Pulling that off and making the building something other than a box is a nice thing. Who cares if it's not a revolutionary thing.

The design is not problematical because does not fail to break new ground. It is problematical because it is in fact conceptually retrograde.

Quote:
Quite pretentious to assume I have no prior interest in architecture. I'm not an architect, and I haven't studied it, but that is a long way away from not having a working relationship with design, psychology and how they inform each other. I find much of the architectural discussion here ignores the realities of that interplay as it sits in the actual context of infill and what could have gone there or what was there.

I see a case of one pretentious person writing a hack of an article, mainly because they want to throw a hissy fit over not being told who is designing an office building. And that said office building is not some magical breakthrough that ignores the existing city, site and infrastructure. That isn't an inditement of Architecture, it is an indication that a person who considers themselves architecturally astute is out of touch with reality -- something an architect cannot blindly ignore for sake of a favorite -ism theory.

Your repeated use of the "pretentious" criticism is itself pretentious. There was no "hissy fit." No "magical breakthrough" was implied as required.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #233 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Sadly, the other doctor won't respond to them... probably because I'm too stupid to understand his answers.

No, I'm just tired (and too occupied by other thing) to provide answers to your questions knowing in advance that you will ignore them.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #234 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No, I'm just tired (and too occupied by other thing) to provide answers to your questions knowing in advance that you will ignore them.

The answers to those questions would inform this discussion greatly. It may not provide many opportunities to use the word retrograde however.
post #235 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

People who are interested in architecture care. Some architects, a handful, have made important contributions to architecture.

First sentence is exactly the problem. More than one person is having a problem with understating the 'rockstar' involvement. And way too personally sensitive. Nobody is disparaging Architecture. We are calling attention to an out of touch attitude of architecture for architectures sake. That isn't architecture's role, architecture's role is to serve the people. All the people, not just judgmental architects.

Quote:
The design is not problematical because does not fail to break new ground. It is problematical because it is in fact conceptually retrograde.

Fake, manufactured, tripe. It sounds just like the two months of verbal and textual abuse the iPad took before it was released. Not that a building an an iPad are the same thing, but Apple tends to cause these shortsighted, jealously fueled negative reactions amongst those 'in the know'. Then the rest of us proclaim them not so smart after the fact. A couple years later everyone forgets.

Quote:
Your repeated use of the "pretentious" criticism is itself pretentious. There was no "hissy fit." No "magical breakthrough" was implied as required.

That's the best retort you have? A throw-back to ~I know you are but what am I? I can understand your unwillingness to identify the first 1/3 of the article as something other than a spoiled hacks jealous raspberry towards 1 Infinite Loop. But because you are showing signs of professional defensiveness where it really isn't needed, you are just blinding yourself to reality as those of us not in the architectural inner circle see it. And just because we aren't card carrying architects doesn't mean we cannot spot a good solution that fits radically better into the environment than what was there before.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #236 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No, I'm just tired (and too occupied by other thing) to provide answers to your questions knowing in advance that you will ignore them.

Wah.

Cut out the stealth FU posts. Either say your piece or don't. You look pretty childish pulling crap like this.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #237 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Wah.

Cut out the stealth FU posts. Either say your piece or don't. You look pretty childish pulling crap like this.

I'm happy that he answered my questions this way... it proved my point about his attitude.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #238 of 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

The answers to those questions would inform this discussion greatly. It may not provide many opportunities to use the word retrograde however.

I gave him a real shot at some meaningful dialogue. Sadly, all he did was to make my earlier remarks true. Posters have to expect that their comments are going to be challenged; acting as if your argument is unassailable because of self professed superior knowledge just doesn't cut it. Answering questions is the only way that people can truly assess whether or not your argument might be valid.

I really do enjoy this topic. I even listened to the entire 1 hour EIR Scoping meeting from last Thursday.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #239 of 306
New epic phrase:

"Apple is conceptually retrograde."

No, no, you say, I was just talking about this building of theirs.

But I say this building expresses perfectly what they are about. Therefore, if that is true, whatever you say about this building applies to the company as a whole.

Hiro's comparison to the iPad misjudgment is correct, I think.
post #240 of 306
The design of the new Apple campus is striking, and a big improvement over what's there now. But Hawthorne's critique is valid; the design is retrograde--it’s futuristic only in a mid-20th-Century kind of way. Designed as an isolated island, rather a 12,000-person part of Cupertino, the design might be a good one for Apple and very much in it's image, but it's not a great design overall. It's very much like failed mid-century attempts at urban renewal, and Le Corbusier's discredited modernist visions of freeway connected skyscrapers in park-like settings--just with the building laid on it's side.

This type of development and land use is increasingly being abandoned because it's sterile and unsustainable. Portland, Greenwich Village, and Boston provide some great examples of how more integrated "metropolitan" settings can develop as beautiful and vibrant engines of broader economic and social development--the likes of which you will not see in a private walled garden.
It's the best mistake he could make; and it's my favourite piece, it's just great. --Kate Bush
Reply
It's the best mistake he could make; and it's my favourite piece, it's just great. --Kate Bush
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'