Architecture critic pans Apple's 'spaceship' campus as 'troubling,' 'scary' - Page 3

I'm fairly certain that Steve's input to the architectural design of the building was limited to drawing two concentric circles on a piece of paper and saying, "Here. Build me this." No, Steve is not an architectnor was he trying to be. What he is is a visionary genius. He knows how to motivate and drive the best people to do their best workthis includes architects.

Please keep your lame, rabid, confusing and off-topic political remarks to yourself.

I don't see it. Ville Contemporaine was centered on massive structures dominating the sky line. While the structure here is massive, it really only looks that way from the air.

Sure there is glass and steel, but that is contemporary architecture, it is in no way unusual today. The curved glass is unique, but hardly Corbusier. If you meant the green spaces, that is an imoortant piece of any large scale project today. You can not get permit to build anything larger than a duplex without a significant green space plan.

Well then you should replace the board.

This is just a way for this critic to focus on himself ... sad.

Yes, critics are optimists

I know this is a joke but I couldn't agree more! As someone who lost a lot of hair in their mid 20's I started buzzing it all off. I hate to see older guys hold onto those scraps of hair.

I think the design is horrible and I don't think Steve is in his right mind. Surgeries, medication, chemotherapy all take their toll on the mind's chemistry.

"Its said that Steve Jobs considers this building to be a key part of his legacy, which would be unfortunate, because it would mean that his last contribution to his company might well be his least meaningful."

Well, Paul, being that you are a guy who at one time won a Pulitzer for your critiques (the same year the Mac was introduced coincidentally), I'd have to say it's unfortunate that this article is part of your legacy because it seems to be your least meaningful.

... and Foster is a hack who just builds whatever he's told to build?

[not to mention that on Steve's worst day he probably functions much better than any of us (you for sure) on our best days)

I don't care too much about the architectural critics, but I was interested in the part about Apple supplying their own electric--using the city grid only as back-up. I don't remember reading about this before...

Anyone know how they are doing this? Is this common?

Yeah, and you sound like a bit of a moron- no offense. Apple is one of the richest companies on the planet- you think it's just SJ running around doing whatever the fuck he wants, without the vetting of dozens, if not hundreds of experts along the way? You don't think every aspect of this building has been looked at by experts in their fields, and will continue to be considered with a fine tooth comb? Again, your post, and those similar to yours, are simply moronic in their childish assumptions and naivity.

They said natural gas. Some have speculated Bloom Energy may be involved.

Generating ad revenue. Just count the clicks on this article...

You're right about that. My intent wasn't to make fun of any bald people. I am thinning myself on the top.

Critics for the New York Times are educated and not idiots. How much to you know about architecture? The constitution as far as I know says nothing about buildings shaped like donuts. All towns, cities, counties have rules regarding zoning, building sizes, environmental impact, and cultural impact. I am not saying the Apple donut is the Mc Mansion of office buildings but this critic as raised some very good points one is the financial clout the company has and its ability to get it's way.

In 2004 (the year you signed up for this forum) Jobs announced he had been diagnosed with cancer. Since then they have released a wide array of very successful products that have made them the highest valued publicly traded company on the planet, the highest mindshare of any company and products, and have set them up for repeated and longterm success for years to come with or without Jobs direct involvement.

Yet somehow you deem his treatment for cancer since 2004 as somehow stripping his mind of any and all sensibility because you don't like the proposed plan for the new campus that he didn't directly design as he is not an architect. You give no reasons why you think he's lost his mind. You give no reason why anyone who likes the design has also gone crackers, including the architects, upper-level Apple employees, and Cupertino officials involved in the project.

What is your basis for this accusation? Where is your reasoning as to how he can have managed Apple as a company so well but somehow been rendered mentally retarded and hoodwinked by all involved in the new campus design?

making fun of someone's physical appearance is sad and is at a level of 13 year old. you should be ashamed of yourself

That is one of the most retarded comments ever posted here and it sounds like you could use some serious medication, because the chemistry in your mind seems to be totally out of wack. You don't have to like the design, but to somehow connect that to Steve Job's chemo? You're lucky that I'm not a mod.

There is nothing wrong with making fun of people's physical appearance, it depends on the circumstances.

If somebody is born with an extra eye in the middle of their head, it would be kind of stupid and quite mean to make fun of such a person, because it's not like it was their choice and they had no say in the process. To make fun of somebody because of their skin color is also stupid and retarded, as people don't get to choose that.

But, it's perfectly ok to make fun of somebody's appearance when they make deliberate choices that aren't genetically chosen. If somebody dresses like a fool and gets horn implants in their head, they shouldn't be surprised if other people are going to stare and ridicule that freak.

Making fun of a woman with tiny breasts is also quite dumb, as that is just what nature dealt them. But it's perfectly ok to make fun of a girl who got huge, fake looking implants that are 5 sizes too big for them.

Do you see the difference?

Is that the same critic that said something along the line of the Eiffle Tower ruined the Paris skyline and was an eyesore that should be torn down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower

... and I could give you a litany of examples where art/architecture critics have been wrong in the past.

It's one person's opinion. That's all. Whether it's based on endless years of research and education seems to be irrelevant (refer to my first paragraph).

As I've said before... get better mass transit in Cupertino... cut the vehicles going to the campus by 2500 over the next 5 years and another 2000 over the next 5 years after that... and most of the concerns will disappear.

The EIR on the project doesn't come out until Spring next year... I can hardly wait to see what they have to say. That should be worth a few hundred clicks for AI.

[QUOTE=Zaphodsplanet;1950907]And why should anyone care what this idiot "Architecture Critic" has to say about anything?? You guys on this site need to do a reality check. People like this bring NOTHING to the party. What has he created? What has he built from scratch? Who has he employees?

NOTHING, NOTHING and NOBODY!

This is still America. How many of you have bothered picking up a copy of our constitution and read it? If you haven't please do so. If Apple decides it wants to build a freaking space ship and put the first store on Mars.... IT'S THEIR MONEY.... they can do whatever in the heck they want to with it. It's not the shareholders.... it's the company's. The CEO, board and shareholders all have input... but not some loser moron of an "Architecture Critic"..... What a freaking joke.[/QUOTE

Only way these clowns feel relevant is to find fault with everything .wonder what he thinks of the New MLK monument colossus in Washington DC ? MADE IN CHINA by the way.

The last paragraph of a critique by Witold Rybczynski [Slate] of Robert Bruegmann's book, Sprawl:

What this iconoclastic little book demonstrates is that sprawl is not the anomalous result of American zoning laws, or mortgage interest tax deduction, or cheap gas, or subsidized highway construction, or cultural antipathy toward cities. Nor is it an aberration. Bruegmann shows that asking whether sprawl is "good" or "bad" is the wrong question. Sprawl is and always has been inherent to urbanization. It is driven less by the regulations of legislators, the actions of developers, and the theories of city planners, than by the decisions of millions of individualsAdam Smith's "invisible hand." This makes altering it very complicated, indeed. There are scores of books offering "solutions" to sprawl. Their authors would do well to read this book. To find solutionsor, rather, better ways to manage sprawl, which is not the same thingit helps to get the problem right.

http://www.slate.com/id/2129636/

There is a difference between a building that affects the skyline and one that is low and hidden by the natural setting. Really, how many people are going to be able to see it from their home or office? Relatively few I would imagine, at least compared to a skyscraper.

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.


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.

Wow, sir. You are very very smart.

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!

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.

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.

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.

If I recall correctly, Steve said that Apple has a fleet of 20 buses running biodiesel. Assuming those buses can hold up to 50 people, that's potentially 1,000 cars eliminated. I think Apple is also giving incentives to employees who bicycle to work, and to employees who carpool.

Move it to China with the rest of the operation....

That's right - this is America. And anyone has a right to criticize Apple's design plans, in any forum they want. Before you give us a civics lesson, maybe you could brush up on the concept of Freedom of Speech.

People, people, people, you're ready to kill the guy because he doesn't like Apple's design. Get a grip on yourselves.

I should have mentioned that I was talking about the parking spaces for over 4000 vehicles in the parking structure along the 280. My reduction numbers would have reduced the need to zero for that structure in 10 years.

It would be a lot more expensive for Apple to put it underground. And besides - its not like Apple owes a nice view to the people on the freeway. The tall parking lot will shield Apple's property from the noise and pollution.

That's a big part of the point that many critics are making.

Where do these people come from? There's always a critic. My question is, why does he care? He doesn't have to work there. Why meddle in other people's business? He either has nothing better to do, or he's attention deprived.

Regardless, I think the building design is cool, and I'd love to visit it some day. Apple has built hundreds of buildings around the world now, and every single one of them are pretty amazing. Why would anyone think this new campus wouldn't be spectacular?

And there's nothing wrong with round. And there's nothing wrong with the Pentagon either - some people keep comparing it like there's something wrong with it.

Tens of thousands of people will drive past it every day, and they won't even see it because it will be hidden by the parking garage.

What I don't understand about the design is the flow - how does one efficiently move through a large circular building?

Certainly, the organization of people and departments will be carefully planned to minimize the need to take a sweeping walk around the circumference, and knowing Apple, there may be some pioneering horizontal conveyors to move people quickly, but the design seems to present challenges from this perspective.

Otherwise, I kind of like the futuristic feel, and the large amount of glass and openings in and around the exterior spaces will likely make it feel like an incredibly open environment, as opposed to something confining like many offices do.

The other critic was from The LA Tmes.

New York and LA are two examples of how Architecture hasn't progressed.

Which also probably blends in very nicely with its surroundings, albeit the i280 concrete jungle.

Look at the size of this proposed building compared to the entirty of the other campus with it's four main structures. It might be large enough that you won't notice the curve.

Really??? I have only one thing to say about this comment....


Click-Wheel