or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › First images of 'Stanford 2' Apple Store renovation surface, hint at new design language [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First images of 'Stanford 2' Apple Store renovation surface, hint at new design language [u]

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
As construction continues at Apple's Stanford 2 retail location, new pictures reveal the store will boast a "glass box and floating roof" design, the first of three Apple Stores to receive the refreshed design aesthetic.

Stanford Apple Store
Source: ifoAppleStore


Update: A previous version of this article incorrectly credited Foster + Partners, and not Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, as its designer.

The photos, obtained by ifoAppleStore, were taken from within the construction site of the Northern California Apple Store, which is nearing the end of a substantial overhaul. Previously, only a rendering of the location had been available for public viewing.

According to the publication, the Stanford 2 Apple Store will be the first of three to sport a "glass box and floating roof" design that affords window shoppers a 180-degree view of the store's interior. The other two outlets slated to take on the new architectural language are located in downtown Portland and France.

Apple Stores are known for their unique and open designs, with all-glass storefronts and trademarked interior layout. The Stanford 2 outlet, designed by Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, takes the idea further with steel beams and glass that wraps around toward the rear of the store.

The company's flagship San Francisco store, dreamed up by Foster+Partners, was recently in the news as Apple plans to move from a location on Stockton and Ellis, to a large space in Union Square. There was a minor controversy surrounding the supposed removal of a 40-year-old fountain sculpture, though further investigation showed the art piece will in fact go untouched.
post #2 of 27
wow it already looks more original (and better) than all MS stores or places gwmac would like to be during an earthquake.
post #3 of 27
Kinda of hard to get a feel for it from the photo. In the picture it looks like a glass barn with steel beams. I suspect it will look quite different when they get the protective panels off the side and removed all the debris from the site.

The rendering makes this glass part look like an empty gallery (wight the possible exception of some art on the stone wall. I am sure it will make more sense with furnishings but rather an empty shell as is.
post #4 of 27
I remember Windows trolls saying the the iMac was terrible because it could fall on you in an earthquake! 1biggrin.gif

P.S. Just checked out my local Microsoft Store... truly a blatant copy of an Apple Store, with a couple colored Windows banners added. And yet... it was a ghost town. Compared to SRO at the Apple Store nearby.
post #5 of 27
@gwmac We're in California, not Bangladesh. The codes here are pretty strict. I doubt anyone Palo Alto code inspectors received a handout to signoff on a permit.
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

@gwmac We're in California, not Bangladesh. The codes here are pretty strict.

 

Strict, but not necessarily good for surviving earth quakes.  I know a geologist who was having a house built in an area where the bedrock was relatively close to the surface. He wanted to sink pylons down into the bedrock so that the house would be immune from the liquefaction that would occur if there was an earthquake.

 

This is in california.  The building codes would not permit him to build an earthquake resistant house using a well known technique. 

 

His only choice was to build a stupid slab foundation design that will fall apart if there's an earthquake... or move to another state. 

 

Just because government regulates something, don't assume their regulations are intelligent.  In most cases, they aren't, they're political, and designed to benefit certain people over others-- generally certain builders in this case-- not to protect people.

 

Protecting people is just the excuse to make you think that government is something other than mafia with good PR.  Ever seen those mafia movies and how the mafia talk about how they "protect the neighborhood"?  That's government to a T. 

post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

That is the last place I would want to be during an earthquake with all that glass.

There is such a thing as seismic codes. The plans for new constructions have to meet these codes before work can proceed. Having said this, design using structural glass remains an emerging field (not restricted to or even pioneered by Apple, btw). 

 

Do not forget that Apple stores use glass not just for walls, but also for stairs. Finite element analysis is remarkably accurate in predicting failure modes, including the behavior of load-bearing structures under seismic stress. 

 

There are three components to designing using structural glass. First, material selection. Second, the design of the structure. Third, the design of the joints. 

 

Apple is known for having invented novel joints in the form of what some refer to as mechanical glazing, which you can observe as stainless steel, knob like connectors. Apple is not the first to use such a joint concept. But, for reasons unknown to me, they developed their own. Another joining method, in use for a few decades now, is known as silicone structural glazing. Silicone joints can not only seal and insulate, but can also bear significant loads. I am not sure if Apple uses silicone glazing for any of their structural glass.

post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

I remember Windows trolls saying the the iMac was terrible because it could fall on you in an earthquake! 1biggrin.gif

P.S. Just checked out my local Microsoft Store... truly a blatant copy of an Apple Store, with a couple colored Windows banners added. And yet... it was a ghost town. Compared to SRO at the Apple Store nearby.

Those were no ordinary trolls. Those were the original troll Kings (one of them) themselves. Either John C. Dvorak or Paul Thurrott who said that.

 

PS

I swear I couldn't remember these guys names. Don't seem to hear so much from them anymore. (I guess ever since they claimed what a failure the iPhone would be back in earlier times)

post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

That is the last place I would want to be during an earthquake with all that glass.

Whatever Mr. Doomsday.

I'm sure those panels are in place with a kind if floating design. It'll give.

So, don't live by the beach cuz a tsunami will kill you.

Don't live in the Midwest cause the tornados will kill you.

Don't live in California cuz earthquakes will get you.

Any other things you want to add??
post #10 of 27

People who shop in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. :D

 

I wonder if Apple's ultimate depiction of an Apple Store is one that barely even exists.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Strict, but not necessarily good for surviving earth quakes.  I know a geologist who was having a house built in an area where the bedrock was relatively close to the surface. He wanted to sink pylons down into the bedrock so that the house would be immune from the liquefaction that would occur if there was an earthquake.

This is in california.  The building codes would not permit him to build an earthquake resistant house using a well known technique. 

His only choice was to build a stupid slab foundation design that will fall apart if there's an earthquake... or move to another state. 

Just because government regulates something, don't assume their regulations are intelligent.  In most cases, they aren't, they're political, and designed to benefit certain people over others-- generally certain builders in this case-- not to protect people.

Protecting people is just the excuse to make you think that government is something other than mafia with good PR.  Ever seen those mafia movies and how the mafia talk about how they "protect the neighborhood"?  That's government to a T. 

WHAT?! He is building a house and he wanted to use pile foundation system!!!! How big is his house 20 story high?!

Second, the government is not the one making those building code. Building codes such as IBC and ASCE-7 are developed by organizations and committees of professionals not by the government. They might have rejected your friend plans because of a situation unique to his land. I have never seen anything in the buildings codes that says you cannot use piles as a foundation system in seismic areas.. Actually.. It is highly recommended that you do specially for high rise.
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

@gwmac We're in California, not Bangladesh. The codes here are pretty strict. I doubt anyone Palo Alto code inspectors received a handout to signoff on a permit.

Oh I know that but your codes aren't close to as strict as they are in Japan and I was there during the Hanshin quake. My apartment was on the 7th floor and it shook forever it seemed. That is the last earthquake I ever want to go through again. Strict codes or not, glass breaks if the quake is strong enough and I wouldn't want to be in that building if one happened. But it does look like it will be a very aesthetically pleasing building but I still wouldn't want to test how strong that glass is during a big one.

Ridiculous. EVERYTHING breaks if shook hard enough.

Glass can be stronger than steel, and IS stronger than concrete.  How'd you like to be in a brick building in an earthquake?

post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

Ridiculous. EVERYTHING breaks if shook hard enough.

Glass can be stronger than steel, and IS stronger than concrete.  How'd you like to be in a brick building in an earthquake?

I would like to be in a brick building in an earthquake.

 

Assuming it was built in California within the last 40 years, the masonry is reinforced. If its older, it has likely been retrofitted which would allow enough time to escape. I have been through several quakes.

Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

Ridiculous. EVERYTHING breaks if shook hard enough.

Glass can be stronger than steel, and IS stronger than concrete.  How'd you like to be in a brick building in an earthquake?


You are the one being ridiculous - ridiculously rude, ridiculously and unjustifiably arrogant.

 

Materials cannot simply be compared on the general basis of "stronger" or "weaker", particularly when they are being assessed for use as structural material. In your eagerness to put down someone just for the sake of it, you are just revealing your own ridiculous ignorance.

 

Get some help.

post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

That is the last place I would want to be during an earthquake with all that glass.

For that would be the first place, even if I had my boots on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

People who shop in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


You are the one being ridiculous - ridiculously rude, ridiculously and unjustifiably arrogant.

Materials cannot simply be compared on the general basis of "stronger" or "weaker", particularly when they are being assessed for use as structural material. In your eagerness to put down someone just for the sake of it, you are just revealing your own ridiculous ignorance.

Get some help.

Well he is right. Structural glass is "stronger" than concrete (based on mechanics of materials) since its modulus of elasticity is higher than that of concrete. . However, each material suffer weakness some how. In concrete, it is tensile strength (this is why concrete is reinforced with steel). In glass, it is imperfections in the material itself that causes stress concentration at loads close to failure. Furthermore, glass is brittle material.
About 9 years ago I met the structural engineer who designs Apple stores glass structures in a conference about transparency in tall buildings. He told amazing things about the glass as structural material. Long story short, the structure is well designed and will perform as well as any other building in earthquake or during high winds.
post #17 of 27
Fascinating discussion, guys. Seriously.
post #18 of 27
I guess Microsoft will have to move their store now, since their way of competing is to operate right next door. Their old store's foot traffic is going to dry up.
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

Kinda of hard to get a feel for it from the photo. In the picture it looks like a glass barn with steel beams. I suspect it will look quite different when they get the protective panels off the side and removed all the debris from the site.

That was my first thought, too.

BTW, shouldn't I be able to pinch an zoom the photo? I'm using a n iP4s...
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


Well he is right. Structural glass is "stronger" than concrete (based on mechanics of materials) since its modulus of elasticity is higher than that of concrete. . However, each material suffer weakness some how. In concrete, it is tensile strength (this is why concrete is reinforced with steel). In glass, it is imperfections in the material itself that causes stress concentration at loads close to failure. Furthermore, glass is brittle material.
About 9 years ago I met the structural engineer who designs Apple stores glass structures in a conference about transparency in tall buildings. He told amazing things about the glass as structural material. Long story short, the structure is well designed and will perform as well as any other building in earthquake or during high winds.


Well, he isn't right. Neither are you. Especially based on the mechanics of materials. In your instance, I am correcting you respectfully because you are generally respectful.

 

First of all, we cannot use a single parameter to compare their "strength". Some will, again, accuse me of spouting tripe. But if we are invoking mechanics of materials, we should do it correctly. Second, Young's modulus is a measure of stiffness. In a general context, it may seem intuitive to believe that stiffness is strength. But is it that simple in the context of the durability of a building? Furthermore, what is the Young's modulus for glass? What is it for concrete? That's like asking how tall are buildings? And which direction are you measuring Young's modulus in? Like the perceived brightness of the sun, direction matters.

 

And we haven't even gotten into yield strength, tensile strength, compressive strength, fatigue, impact ... There is a reason the field is called mechanics of materials and not simply strength of materials.

 

I am going to resist sneering at your mention of meeting the dude who designed the glass structures at Apple. And again I mean that respectfully. Why do people mention these things? I went to a WHO concert, but I'd never tell anyone how to play a guitar. I saw Michael Jackson but still don't have a sense of rhythm.

 

There is no single structural engineer who designs Apple stores. If you met the guy who gets the credit, then you probably met James O'Callaghan. But I doubt he would say "he" designed the glass structures at Apple Stores. At least, I hope he didn't say it that way. For sure, if he heard you say that he told you, "structural glass is stronger than concrete." He'd ask you to stop because that would be a careless and incorrect generalization. I am no O'Callaghan but, for your sake, I suggest you stop repeating the same generalization, and respect the complexity of engineering. What engineers can do with glass is remarkable. But advances in concrete is no less so. In fact, you'd be amazed what happens when the two are mixed.

 

Finally, if you are so sure structural glass is stronger than concrete, please take a picture next time you are in a skyskraper where all the load bearing columns are made of glass alone. And if you really believe glass is stronger than steel, please take a video next time you see a construction crew drive glass piles into the ground to support a new building or bridge. Please wear safety glasses when you do this :)


Edited by stelligent - 6/8/13 at 9:58am
post #21 of 27
Quote:
...Foster + Partners, the design firm Apple has tapped to revamp the look of its retail chain....

 

Not really the right metaphor, IMO, until Apple starts selling shoes--which may be on the horizon!  Shoe-phone anyone?

 

 

 

...missed it by THAT much!

post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


Well, he isn't right. Neither are you. Especially based on the mechanics of materials. In your instance, I am correcting you respectfully because you are generally respectful.

First of all, we cannot use a single parameter to compare their "strength". Some will, again, accuse me of spouting tripe. But if we are invoking mechanics of materials, we should do it correctly. Second, Young's modulus is a measure of stiffness. In a general context, it may seem intuitive to believe that stiffness is strength. But is it that simple in the context of the durability of a building? Furthermore, what is the Young's modulus for glass? What is it for concrete? That's like asking how tall are buildings? And which direction are you measuring Young's modulus in? Like the perceived brightness of the sun, direction matters.

And we haven't even gotten into yield strength, tensile strength, compressive strength, fatigue, impact ... There is a reason the field is called mechanics of materials and not simply strength of materials.

Sure and this is why I said "However, each material suffer weakness some how...". By the way, mechanics of materials and strength of materials are the same subject. It just that some call it strength and some call it mechanics.
Quote:
I am going to resist sneering at your mention of meeting the dude who designed the glass structures at Apple. And again I mean that respectfully. Why do people mention these things? I went to a WHO concert, but I'd never tell anyone how to play a guitar. I saw Michael Jackson but still don't have a sense of rhythm.

If we were talking about music and WHO concert and your meeting has something to do about this discussion then sure, why not bring it up. We are here at public discussion forum where people share their knowledge and experiences.
Quote:
There is no single structural engineer who designs Apple stores. If you met the guy who gets the credit, then you probably met James O'Callaghan.

It was Tim Macfarlane of Dewhurst Macfarlane and Partners. James O'Callaghan used to work for him before leaving to start his own business. He did not tell me HE designed Apple stores. He mentioned during his keynote that their office designed the NY Apple store among other projects. My conversation with him was about general engineering design issues.
Quote:
For sure, if he heard you say that he told you, "structural glass is stronger than concrete." He'd ask you to stop because that would be a careless and incorrect generalization. I am no O'Callaghan but, for your sake, I suggest you stop repeating the same generalization, and respect the complexity of engineering.

Can you point to me where I said he told me "structural glass is stronger than concrete."? There is large number of research related to structural glass. It is even included in building codes. You can find all the information you need about properties of structural glass. I am not going to link to online resources (Wikipedia and others) here because as an engineer I don't use these resources professionally. But if you want you can.
Quote:
What engineers can do with glass is remarkable. But advances in concrete is no less so. In fact, you'd be amazed what happens when the two are mixed.

I know all about concrete. My dissertation and funded research are related to concrete 1smile.gif
Quote:
Finally, if you are so sure structural glass is stronger than concrete, please take a picture next time you are in a skyskraper where all the load bearing columns are made of glass alone. And if you really believe glass is stronger than steel, please take a video next time you see a construction crew drive glass piles into the ground to support a new building or bridge. Please wear safety glasses when you do this 1smile.gif

You are implying that I said since glass is stronger than concrete then glass is the ultimate material. I never said that. In fact if you read my post again you will notice that I said that glass have its flaws.
Edited by NasserAE - 6/8/13 at 6:35pm
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

By the way, mechanics of materials and strength of materials are the same subject. It just that some call it strength and some call it mechanics.

Your arguments, such as this one, read like they're straight out of the Wikipedia page on mechanics of materials.
post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


Your arguments, such as this one, read like they're straight out of the Wikipedia page on mechanics of materials.

 

This just proof that you don't know about the subject and tried to use Wikipedia. But since my statement is right and you couldn't proof otherwise you accuse me of using Wikipedia as a source. Nice try.


Edited by NasserAE - 6/10/13 at 2:03am
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


Well, he isn't right. Neither are you. Especially based on the mechanics of materials. In your instance, I am correcting you respectfully because you are generally respectful.

 

First of all, we cannot use a single parameter to compare their "strength". Some will, again, accuse me of spouting tripe. But if we are invoking mechanics of materials, we should do it correctly. Second, Young's modulus is a measure of stiffness. In a general context, it may seem intuitive to believe that stiffness is strength. But is it that simple in the context of the durability of a building? Furthermore, what is the Young's modulus for glass? What is it for concrete? That's like asking how tall are buildings? And which direction are you measuring Young's modulus in? Like the perceived brightness of the sun, direction matters.

 

And we haven't even gotten into yield strength, tensile strength, compressive strength, fatigue, impact ... There is a reason the field is called mechanics of materials and not simply strength of materials.

 

I am going to resist sneering at your mention of meeting the dude who designed the glass structures at Apple. And again I mean that respectfully. Why do people mention these things? I went to a WHO concert, but I'd never tell anyone how to play a guitar. I saw Michael Jackson but still don't have a sense of rhythm.

 

There is no single structural engineer who designs Apple stores. If you met the guy who gets the credit, then you probably met James O'Callaghan. But I doubt he would say "he" designed the glass structures at Apple Stores. At least, I hope he didn't say it that way. For sure, if he heard you say that he told you, "structural glass is stronger than concrete." He'd ask you to stop because that would be a careless and incorrect generalization. I am no O'Callaghan but, for your sake, I suggest you stop repeating the same generalization, and respect the complexity of engineering. What engineers can do with glass is remarkable. But advances in concrete is no less so. In fact, you'd be amazed what happens when the two are mixed.

 

Finally, if you are so sure structural glass is stronger than concrete, please take a picture next time you are in a skyskraper where all the load bearing columns are made of glass alone. And if you really believe glass is stronger than steel, please take a video next time you see a construction crew drive glass piles into the ground to support a new building or bridge. Please wear safety glasses when you do this :)

 

@stelligent: Couldn't agree more.

 

@NasserAE:  Making the generalization that glass, or any other material, is "stronger" that concrete is ludicrous without qualifying under what circumstances it is "stronger". Reinforced concrete relies on a specific recipe developed for that use and then multiple types of tests to prove the performance of the actual product used on site. (Cylinders are compressed to test the compressive strength, beams are broken to test the flexural strength, a slump cone is done to measure its workability before placing, the reinforcing steel is tested and graded before it is ever delivered. My point is that one would need to specify the actual grade of concrete required (usually specified by numbers of sacks of cement per yard, slump, additives, special aggregate, etc… but ultimately by its compressive and flexural strength at given times after placing and curing under same conditions (typically 7 and 28 days and less a quick set batch is called for). Similars types of standards would apply to structural glass used in a building (although delivered ready to place). I cannot speak to the specifics of the standards for describing the structural properties of glass but do know they exist (and vary widely depending on the formula for the glass and how it is produced).

post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


Sure and this is why I said "However, each material suffer weakness some how...". By the way, mechanics of materials and strength of materials are the same subject. It just that some call it strength and some call it mechanics.
If we were talking about music and WHO concert and your meeting has something to do about this discussion then sure, why not bring it up. We are here at public discussion forum where people share their knowledge and experiences.
It was Tim Macfarlane of Dewhurst Macfarlane and Partners. James O'Callaghan used to work for him before leaving to start his own business. He did not tell me HE designed Apple stores. He mentioned during his keynote that their office designed the NY Apple store among other projects. My conversation with him was about general engineering design issues.
Can you point to me where I said he told me "structural glass is stronger than concrete."? There is large number of research related to structural glass. It is even included in building codes. You can find all the information you need about properties of structural glass. I am not going to link to online resources (Wikipedia and others) here because as an engineer I don't use these resources professionally. But if you want you can.
I know all about concrete. My dissertation and funded research are related to concrete 1smile.gif
You are implying that I said since glass is stronger than concrete then glass is the ultimate material. I never said that. In fact if you read my post again you will notice that I said that glass have its flaws.

I guess he didn't realize he was replying to an engineer who actually is required to know this information to be able to do their jobs.  lol.gif

post #27 of 27
"Strict, but not necessarily good for surviving earth quakes. I know a geologist who was having a house built in an area where the bedrock was relatively close to the surface. He wanted to sink pylons down into the bedrock so that the house would be immune from the liquefaction that would occur if there was an earthquake."

I can't not comment on this. Your friend was building a house where the bedrock was close to the surface and he was afraid of liquifaction if an earthquake happened??
Uh, which is it? It can't be both. Liquifaction happens where there is filled land and weak soil types, *not* in areas close to bedrock.

And a comment about earthquake safety where there's a lot of glass: seismic codes are designed to minimize as much as possible loss if life and injury. A glass structure may seem dangerous, but the point is to design the structure so people aren't hurt or killed. This determines the kind of glass that's allowed. Think of a large store window or even a car windshield. The glass will break if damaged or broken, but won't cause injury. I'd rather be hit by pieces of falling safety glass than by a large beam, but no one worries about beams.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › First images of 'Stanford 2' Apple Store renovation surface, hint at new design language [u]