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

I decided to register because of this discussion.

I remembered reading an article that mentioned something interesting about Jobs and his mentality when it came to architectural design and how he wanted people to interact within the given space...


So I'm assuming in some part, that idea was incorporated into this building.

Great points!

I would argue (as others have) that the lack of integration into the urban sprawl/concrete community is a positive thing, providing an example for the rest of the city to emulate/adapt to.

Opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one.

Apple brings out all of these critics due to their high public profile, it's kind of like click bait for print media.

To me, the building also looks very inefficient. Ok, with 4 levels, you don't need an elevator, but to go from north to south you seed a Segway. A cube or a skyscraper would have been more efficient to get from point a to point b. I also don't understand why apple is already planing campus 3. Look at all the completely unused space around the circle building. Why not just adding something to this structure? Why not just building 6 instead of 4 floors and problem is solved?

You evidently haven't been paying attention. People have been living and working onboard the USS Enterprise for years quite happily. The scale of the thing provides the illusion of nice, cosily-familiar, right-angled corners to nearly all the roomsI just wouldn't want to be the drywall guy!

One of the more interesting things about rhetoric and the peculiar "wrapper" in which it is ensconced, is that there is often a plurality of perspectives at work in a discussion like this, all having validity within their own framework and all typically either "dissed or dismissed" by adherents within each perspective.

Here there seems to be no less than three different viewpoints (please see below), each with their own internalized dialogue for validation – and perhaps many more, once one removes themselves from the pedestrian nature of this particular query.

1. Your viewpoint - the "Tomato, Tomahto – Potato, Potahto view" (which essentially states that the presenter's entire assumption set is invalid and hence imminently discardable; - btw, I am inclined to agree (if not embrace) the overall logic you present.

2. The presenter's viewpoint - the "It is part of my mundane job that I create a tempest in a teapot by often commenting in a derisive manner about things I ultimately don't really understand" view, underscored by the fact that they buy ink by the barrel.

3. The architectural critics' viewpoint - the "Great Conversation" by internal experts that any discipline develops in its ongoing effort to define and refine itself. Often misunderstood by outsiders, it is often a memorial to both the need to distinguish and the need to publish, and is typically misunderstood by those not familiar with the internal conventions of the Conversation.

There is, of course, other viewpoints that should be mentioned - perhaps Steve Jobs' most notably. Although I have never met him, much less know him - I can pretend to try to understand him given the vast storehouse of anecdotal information available. His view seems to be instinctual - the ability to know - at an atavistic level - what needs to be done (often while flying in the face of the so-called collective wisdom of one's time).

Given Mr. Jobs' track record, it would seem as though Christopher Hawthorne might check his Michael Dell hole card - and conclude that, despite all the tea leaves, bone tosses, and murmurrings from lesser sons of a disgruntled proletariat, on further reflection, he might posit that a round spaceship disconnecting one from the secular rhythms of civil mendacity that must ripple through any metropolitan area is an excellent idea and the overall order of the day.

I would worry if there weren't differing opinions on design.

Of course, I've never been to fond of Architects. They barely can handle basic calculus, let alone a statics course and often are failed fine arts majors who chose architecture as the intersection of various fields they didn't thrive in.

The critic is a pompass a$$. The building is absolutely gorgeous. One question, though... Where is the parking? The renderings show a park surrounding the building. Is parking underground? Or, is the rendering not accurate in this regard?

If there was one foot of drywall in this building I'd be shocked and disappointed.

This is a terrific summary of the primary problem with Architectural Theory: in order to really engage in and make meaningful contributions to Architectural discourse, you pretty much need at least a few semesters of Art History and Architectural Theory under your belt, unless you've read enough on your own that you can decrypt essays like this.

This thing looks beautiful and that is all I care about. And to all critics if you have something better show us or shut up.

Well... I have to agree that tone of article was poor, also written for fellow archs. No concrete(pun intended) suggestions.

In terms of modern 'office' buildings, in the US cash is king, so pretty boring stuff compared to our earlier work. Now look at china and some unique things are being built.

IMO, the only architect that ever 'moved me' was Frank Loyd Wright. He designed some great office buildings. Always over budget, but great stuff. Wow, can you imagine FLW and Steve Jobs working on a project?

As for Apples design.... IMO it seems pretty basic, as Steve undoubtable likes; which is all that really counts right?(Ayn Rand would be proud). From the ground, it will look like any other building but with a curve to it.

Some call it a spaceship... Well if it didn't have a hole in it maybe. IMO looks like a 'glazed' donut.

ESRF:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=esrf&l...dius=0.27&z=17

APS:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Advanc...src=6&t=h&z=16

Diamond:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=diamon...15000&t=h&z=16

Yeah we have a many more of those in science facilities....

The concept of it being "green" without adequate public transport access is frankly laughable and unthinkable in the EU...

It looks cool.

They don't actually. The more spectacularly the thing they canned excels, the more they are remembered as the one who canned it.

Another species, another enemy architected.

It may be a long walk around the diameter of the new building.... but Apple is probably smart enough to place cooperating departments close enough to each other to avoid long walks.

It's gotta be more efficient than walking between buildings.

Look at the old campus... how often do people from building IL3 meet with people all the way over in building B8 anyway? That's a car ride!

No

Here's what you theorists (or theorist apologists) are missing/ignoring. Jobs and his architects didn't design this building for a theoretician's views about what might or might not be good for some mythical idyllic urban society. He designed this building for the needs of its users. There is nothing shameful about designing any product to suit its users.

This, in the face of competing constraints:

- The building is going to be in Cupertino. End of story. Not only because Jobs likes the city and it has been good to him, and Apple, but because that's where the main campus is right now, and there will still necessarily be much travel between buildings. So the closer the two campuses (3 eventually) are, the more efficient (and therefore more green) they are in aggregate. All else equal, of course.

- As others have mentioned, Cupertino is not a metropolitan city. Public transportation is not the main form of travel as it is in a place like NYC, and without a central business core, the argument that Apple could create one is ridiculous. Even with as many employees as Apple has, nothing they do with one or two buildings will change the attitude of the region's culture. We like trees and open space.

- Here's something I didn't see anyone else mention: whatever building design they use, it needs to take security into consideration. High security. Every time an employee enters or leaves a building they are dealing with security. Been there, done that. With the donut design, employees can use the entire area in the middle of the building without "checking out", encouraging them to get sunshine, greenery and fresh air without any hassle. It's large enough to allow many people to be out there without feeling crowded, but also, I believe, to help facilitate the "accidental meetings", as mentioned by since1986 above. It doesn't have to be perfectly circular to achieve this, of course, but it's efficient use of space.


But is Cupertino actually considered a metropolitan area? Because that's where the building is going to be.


Thank you for the splash of reality. Some people actually do like this, but they tend to be young and single, not the majority of society.


As far as I understand it, Cupertino doesn't want that kind of growth. What are you suggesting Apple should do? Relocate to another city and lose 1/2 their employees? Try to change the culture of their city?

The best theory stays within the bounds of reality!


Is there any reason to think that we must continue to be an "ever-growing population"? This is the flaw that overshadows the entire conversation. Much better than "vertical cities" (for most of us) would simply be a reduction in birth rate and immigration numbers. Now THAT'S a happy medium.


All that. Thank you.


And that. Exactly.

This building is genius, for its intended purpose.

Speaking as an architect, campus planner and Apple lover, I completely agree with the his critique. There is nothing more hermetic and isolated than a circle, turning inward upon itself. Unfortunately, the design represents the worst of Apple's culture and values.

This media hack is obviously--like 95% of them--a bleeding Lib. Libs LOVE anything 'urban' and they HATE anything 'suburban.' It's why every Lib's dream is 'high-speed rail' that connects urban centers.

I like that point...in every generation there are trendsetters in multiple fields and in this day and age for the foreseeable future that trendsetter is Apple.

Maybe the 3rd campus will be even MORE groundbreaking.

first of all a high-speed rail is a great idea as if implemented correctly (which is the biggest issue) it could cut out on work commutes and highway clutter thus less polution which is a good thing whether you buy into Anthropomorphic global warming or not.

second of all it seems like you have a lot of issues with teh liberalz...for no real reason...

Fox talking points?

A horrible uninspired "design" that looks backwards about 80 years to bullishit utopian visions of Le Corbousier. I couldn't agree with with the LA Times critic.

I personally like the circle. And that image sheds a lot of light.

what works for a 5,000 sf building or storefront does not work for a freestanding building of millions of square feet. You don't like modern architecture? This is the most Modern building designed in decades. It represents the worst of a style I thought we had put behind us in the '70s.

Imagine walking up to a seamless wall of glass 50' high, that is a mile long. That is not the kind of environment that we should be building. What looks good in a model or rendering can be horrible at the scale of real life.

And what have you designed recently of note? My guess is nothing. Now back on your hole.

I think it would be stifling to work in a suburban office park. Not only are they the worst examples of sprawl architecture, but most are mind-numbingly bland. And they require cars to access them, and to get anywhere else.

Sprawl architecture is hugely inefficient. Apple could have integrated the office into the built environment, but instead, chose to erect an impenetrable blank facade, the same from every angle, which screams inside/outside rather than adding to the neighborhood in any sort of welcoming way.

They express their internal culture with the building, rather than adding to the city.

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

How about this stuff?


The more interesting question is whether a place like Cupertino can maintain its low-density sprawl in future decades, as the Bay Area's population continues to grow,...


...the pastoral corporate campus "precludes the concentration of population that makes public transportation feasible for governments and users." And even if suburbs like Cupertino decide to make tentative moves in the direction of greater density and better transit, the architecture of the corporate estate the land it eats up and the automobile infrastructure it requires helps fix in place land-use patterns that are tough to dislodge.

"If all you see in your workday are your co-workers and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property," she writes, and you drive to and from work in the cocoon of your private car, "the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

...a nation that from its earliest decades loved "to turn its back on cities and stake a claim on the suburban pastoral idyll isolated, proprietary, verdant, and disengaged from civic space." Those adjectives, of course, perfectly describe the planned Apple headquarters. There are unmistakable echoes in Apple's new building of the headquarters of Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, in suburban New Jersey,

Cupertino is not an urban environment. Given the existing surroundings, the new Apple headquarters are a dramatic improvement, aesthetically and environmentally. Aside from replacing ugly, cookie cutter concrete slabs with beautiful glass and steel, note how acres of asphalt will be replaced with green spaces as parking is moved underground.

http://tinyurl.com/5tzzlzu

The architectural ideal of an efficiently planned, urban environment incorporating green spaces is great, but requires you start with an urban setting and the collaboration of civic, business and community leaders - a combination that's largely nonexistent in most US cities (with NYC demonstrating a few promising examples.)

It's unfair and unrealistic to expect a single company - even Apple - to singlehandedly create a revolutionary urban community, especially when it's headquarters are away from any urban areas.

"People will feel out of sorts, disoriented, and uncomfortable" I feel like that everywhere I go.

you have no idea where King Tut was buried, do you? Hint, it's not a pyramid.

I personally like the mothership design, but let's all be honest, this is a Steve Jobs vanity project. Period.

what do you expect from a Yale B.A?

I love the campus, the number of trees and open space and the low profile way this building sits in it's faux natural surroundings but this critic couldn't be more correct. The overall building design looks like an idea of the "future" from the American 1950's. It may be the case that the actual building seen in real life with it's high end construction materials and architectural details may create a different effect than seeing the donut from overhead but there is not much other than hope and "trust me, it'll be awesome" to indicate that that would be the case.

And unfortunately, Steve is great at designing objects, not environments. This building will be an object, on a scale almost unheard of in history. Buildings, BTW, are not objects, they are environments.

I wonder if Steve's mortality has influenced this design. It appears to be a sort of "monument."

I was also immediately reminded of the Merck headquarters. How sad.

Not to be mean yu do have points, but isn't "trust me, it will be awesome." What made Apple what it is g'day?

I couldn't disagree with you more on that. Metropolitan in this context is building a community, rather than isolating the campus from the community-- literally turning inward to a protected plaza. The complete (historical) disregard for public transit from the city of Cupertino is part of the problem, but the campus could have worked much better with what urban fabric exists in the area.

Logistically, however, I'm not sure there are many other realistic types of solutions. You need the protected quadrangle if you want the secrecy. You want a single structure if you need the flexibility that large footprints allow. From a security and internal culture standpoint, you want to keep people inside the circle.

An LA Times critic complaining about "dependence on the car" has to be the height of hypocracy.