Oh blargh. So, I went to the trouble of actually reading his commentary, and in the portion where he actually talks about the building, he uses words, but he doesn't really say anything
but who wants to work in a gigantic donut?
The only time you'll see the "donut" is if you're flying more than 1,000 feet overhead. If you're working inside the building, or strolling around it, you'll see endlessly curving walls of glass.
But buildings arent spaceships, any more than they are iPhones.
Wow, sir. You are very very smart.
So why is Fosters design troubling, maybe even a bit scary?
Never really got around to answering your own rhetorical question. Of course, words like "troubling" and "scary" with regard to architectural design will certainly generate a lot of hits, and will help in Google searches as well. Mission accomplished!
A building is also a tool, but of a very different sort. In architecture, scalethe size of various parts of a building in proportion to one another and to the size of human beingscounts for a lot. With this building, there seems to be very little sense of any connection to human size.
This comment suggests to me that you never bothered to look at any of the renderings, floor plans, or descriptions that I just downloaded from Cupertino's planning website
Flexibility is a hallmark of the iPad, and it counts in architecture, too, but how much flexibility is there in a vast office governed entirely by geometry?
Again, dude. Look at the drawings. Looks to me like there's a lot of room for flexibility within the "donut". As to the "governed entirely by geometry" comment, every
amazing architectural structure begins as a few simple strokes of a pen or pencil on paper. Visionary architects have a tendency to begin with simple geometric designs, and then find ways to make them work in the real world.
For all of Fosters sleekness, this Apple building seems more like a twenty-first-century version of the Pentagon.
Aw, man. It's like you're not even trying.
Good critics understand that real criticism is about deconstructing something and sussing out its workings and then commenting on thatpointing out the strengths and weaknesses. Bad critics mistake "criticism" for "criticizing", i.e. they think their job is simply to say "that's crap," and then try to come up with stuff to back up their assertion.
I'm not trying to suggest that the Apple Spaceship is The Best Thing Ever To Be Built. I'm sure there are legitimate issues and questions to be raised. Mr. What's-His-Name didn't raise them.