or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple must modify Union Square store plans to save fountain, says City of San Francisco
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple must modify Union Square store plans to save fountain, says City of San Francisco - Page 2

post #41 of 65

Show me one example of an Apple Store that detracts from it's surroundings.

post #42 of 65
Damn that's an ugly fountain. It may be historical, but it historically ugly.
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Got that in LA too. Govt won't pass laws to get homeless off streets. In fact some folks want to make it even more legal for them to loiter etc.

 

Where are you going to put them in the desert? You see them everywhere, Atlanta, Boston, NY. Its a problem with no acceptable remedy. Back in the day people with mental health issues would be housed in state hospitals. Today, you find them on the street getting no help.

post #44 of 65

it's plain most of the dismissive commenters here have never actually visited the fountain, since none describe it accurately. it's actually a pastiche of about 100 mini-scenes - originally modeled in bread dough and then cast onto the surface of the cylindrical conventional fountain - whimsically depicting many local SF icons, often with a humorous touch. it's simply a fun thing, which is why all generations of both residents and visitors enjoy inspecting it closely when passing by, hence it's local popularity.

 

i have no idea what is so special about one more Apple store that gets you AI fans so worked up. there are hundreds of them already - it's just one more fancy chain store - but there is only one fountain like this. Apple has needed a bigger SF downtown store for years, where it does huge sales volume. leaving is not an option, get real. anyway, it owns its current location.

 

it is Apple that wants the prestigious Union Square location, not the other way around, to burnish its "high end" branding.

 

yes, the c.1970 buildings and plaza there now are undistinguished and certainly could be improved. so let's see what next design Apple comes up with before going all knee-jerk.

 

people in SF take the future of their city seriously, yes, and everything is open to civic debate. if you don't like that, and just want $$$$ to call all the shots, fine. just stay where you are, you won't be missed here.

post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

The same thing happened here in Switzerland, the city of Zurich asked Apple to keep the building mostly original as well as the sidewalk and the railings around the new store, there is some silly uniformity code,  Apple had something else in mind and threatened to pull out of the project. The city officials basically said don't let the door hit you in your ass on the way out, Apple dropped it. Zurich really didn't want an Apple store anyway as there is already a Swiss owned chain of stores that just sells Apple products called DataQuest, they have been around since the late 80's. I know people who have banned the store but have no problem buying Apple products from DataQuest, nutty Swiss. We do crazy things to foreign businesses all the time, Mars wanted to bring M&M's here but the Swiss has a product called Smarties which is basically the same thing ,so Mars was only allowed to sell the peanut version of the candy. The Swiss government goes to great strengths to protect Swiss businesses from going under. The Ikea store's are literally in the middle of no where to discourage people from always going to them instead of a local furniture store, the list goes on and on.

What San Francisco is asking for seems pretty reasonable. I don't know how it is in the US but we take our historical landmarks pretty serious and no amount of money or promised jobs would ever change that, especially when our landmarks are 100's of years old and businesses come and go.

Edit;
I shouldn't comment on this, it's not my country, sorry.

No edit needed Relic, an informative, excellent post. Thank you. (Not my country either, but heh)
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 #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

No edit needed Relic, an informative, excellent post. Thank you. (Not my country either, but heh)
Yes good comment, however many in the U.S. sadly ignore things like that. Apple unlike most companies that find a Forrest lot and tear it down instead, tries to keep as much original but also as much not. I can say the only apple store in our state just so happens to be a 9 min drive, it is in a brand new fancy shopping mall and has the same traffic as a Walmart(considering sq. footage is under a 10th).

Also go point out that there still is the old apple store in San Francisco that they might just redesign or something.
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

it's plain most of the dismissive commenters here have never actually visited the fountain, since none describe it accurately. it's actually a pastiche of about 100 mini-scenes - originally modeled in bread dough and then cast onto the surface of the cylindrical conventional fountain - whimsically depicting many local SF icons, often with a humorous touch. it's simply a fun thing, which is why all generations of both residents and visitors enjoy inspecting it closely when passing by, hence it's local popularity.

i have no idea what is so special about one more Apple store that gets you AI fans so worked up. there are hundreds of them already - it's just one more fancy chain store - but there is only one fountain like this. Apple has needed a bigger SF downtown store for years, where it does huge sales volume. leaving is not an option, get real. anyway, it owns its current location.

it is Apple that wants the prestigious Union Square location, not the other way around, to burnish its "high end" branding.

yes, the c.1970 buildings and plaza there now are undistinguished and certainly could be improved. so let's see what next design Apple comes up with before going all knee-jerk.

people in SF take the future of their city seriously, yes, and everything is open to civic debate. if you don't like that, and just want $$$$ to call all the shots, fine. just stay where you are, you won't be missed here.

I'm sorry, no it's ugly. Don't hide it's ugliness behind the guise of "art".

Seriously, I think some "art" lovers act like those parents who keep every single doodle their child ever made, proudly displayed on the fridge. "But we can't throw it out!"

There is good art, and there's bad "art", and yet they seem to be celebrated equally. What gets me is stuff that's venerated just because its ancient. So? It may have been considered ugly back then.
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

No edit needed Relic, an informative, excellent post. Thank you. (Not my country either, but heh)

I agree, informative post by Relic. But I am from California, and there is nothing of historic value surrounding that fountain, which lies in a barely used plaza, covered by the shade of the awkward Levi's building that Apple will replace. Apple would be doing the fountain a great service by moving it somewhere where it will be better seen and appreciated.

   

Reply

   

Reply
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


I'm sorry, no it's ugly. Don't hide it's ugliness behind the guise of "art".

Seriously, I think some "art" lovers act like those parents who keep every single doodle their child ever made, proudly displayed on the fridge. "But we can't throw it out!"

There is good art, and there's bad "art", and yet they seem to be celebrated equally. What gets me is stuff that's venerated just because its ancient. So? It may have been considered ugly back then.

actually, my point was - which you totally missed - that it's fun. and that is why it is popular. i didn't offer any opinion about its quality as "art." if you want to venture into that utterly subjective topic, well, lots of luck. you can join all the pompous conceited fools who pontificate massively about that topic if you wish, i'm not going there.

 

and have you actually ever stood next to it to get a good look?

post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

actually, my point was - which you totally missed - that it's fun. and that is why it is popular. i didn't offer any opinion about its quality as "art." if you want to venture into that utterly subjective topic, well, lots of luck. you can join all the pompous conceited fools who pontificate massively about that topic if you wish, i'm not going there.

and have you actually ever stood next to it to get a good look?

And my point was that it seems to fall in that category of "but we can't just tear it down!"

And so it will be venerated forever.

My question is, why?
post #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


And my point was that it seems to fall in that category of "but we can't just tear it down!"

And so it will be venerated forever.

My question is, why?

it's not "venerated" - it's "enjoyed". because it's a fun thing, that's why. gol, what a grinch.

post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

it's not "venerated" - it's "enjoyed". because it's a fun thing, that's why. gol, what a grinch.

My beef with it is not with it specifically, but how easily things fall into the "you can't tear it down!" category.

When something is viewed as never being able to be destroyed, I call that veneration. It becomes something almost sacred. I just don't get it.

I can understand when something is a historical marvel, or a world wonder, or had a singularly great impact on culture. But it's a fountain that doesn't seem all that great. And it's tucked behind an ugly building.

Let me ask you, at what point would it be ok to level it and build something new? Or should it be kept forever?
post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

My beef with it is not with it specifically, but how easily things fall into the "you can't tear it down!" category.

When something is viewed as never being able to be destroyed, I call that veneration. It becomes something almost sacred. I just don't get it.

I can understand when something is a historical marvel, or a world wonder, or had a singularly great impact on culture. But it's a fountain that doesn't seem all that great. And it's tucked behind an ugly building.

Let me ask you, at what point would it be ok to level it and build something new? Or should it be kept forever?

if you don't grasp the importance of cherishing the elements of our cities that bring delight, then you have no idea what true city building is.

it's not just one more high end chain store.
post #54 of 65
That fountain is double butt ugly.
post #55 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

if you don't grasp the importance of cherishing the elements of our cities that bring delight, then you have no idea what true city building is.

it's not just one more high end chain store.

You didn't answer my question.
post #56 of 65
I love all of these non-San Franciscan people who smugly proclaim that Apple can and should take their business elsewhere because the city doesn't want a landmark public fountain destroyed by the construction of a retail store. They have no idea what they're talking about. For Apple to modify their design to accommodate the fountain is nothing in relation to what they'd be giving up if they don't. They will gladly do it in order to preserve their presence in the Union Square area. Why? Because that location is a freakin' GOLD MINE, that's why.

Here in the real world, the mighty Apple will readily bow to the will of San Francisco and cry all the way to the bank.
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Another point of concern for the Planning Department is ensuring that the design of Apple's new store fits in well with the overall look of the area. The Assessment encourages a "contemporary design" ? Apple's current plan calls for a minimalist structure with an all-glass facade and a blank rear wall ? but it also says that the "overall design and detailing should relate to the established patterns, rhythm and architectural character found within the District."

And how exactly does the current Levi's store accomplish this?     I'm certainly one who is in favor of preserving important architecture and the character of a district, but this seems more like a case of 'wannabe architects' on the planning department who want to prove that they know more about design than Apple does.   And the language of "...should relate to the established patterns, rhythm and architectural character...." is so vague as to be useless.    It would be one thing if this were a Victorian or cast-iron district, but I fail to see how Apple's proposed design is in conflict with the other buildings in the district other than the fact that it's far more distinct and unique, especially when the assessment encourages a "contemporary design"   

 

And I say this as someone who is not necessarily favorably inclined to like Apple's newest stores.   The stone floors and walls combined with the glass fronts and roof treatments frequently lead to an incredibly noisy environment and the greenhouse effect must make the stores inefficient to cool in the summer (although perhaps more efficient to heat in the winter).   And I also think the "parsons table" interior is 'getting old', although I can't think of a suitable replacement.  

 

I haven't been in SF for some years, but if it hasn't changed, I'd be much more concerned with all the homeless people who sleep in the doorways of retail stores.  

post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by popnfresh View Post

Because that location is a freakin' GOLD MINE, that's why.

Except for all the people actually from San Francisco who say that it's in a backwater and that the fountain is an eyesore.

Don't use the word 'fanboy' here, either.
post #59 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


You didn't answer my question.

you only "level" worthwhile things for something of the greatest importance and necessity. never just another high-end chain store. for example, if for some technical reason that was the only possible place to locate the new subway station actually being built a block away from there now. and even then, for something as small as this fountain you'd merely relocate it.

 

do you know anything about the history of Union Square? do you know about the true-landmark City of Paris that was "leveled" for a Neiman Marcus in the 1970's (they did relocate its ornamental rotunda)? that was back in the days of city-destroying "urban renewal." they made all the same arguments then you do now. would never be allowed to happen now.

post #60 of 65
As a SF native, who cares? I think that fountain is rather ugly.
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

you only "level" worthwhile things for something of the greatest importance and necessity. never just another high-end chain store. for example, if for some technical reason that was the only possible place to locate the new subway station actually being built a block away from there now. and even then, for something as small as this fountain you'd merely relocate it.

do you know anything about the history of Union Square? do you know about the true-landmark City of Paris that was "leveled" for a Neiman Marcus in the 1970's (they did relocate its ornamental rotunda)? that was back in the days of city-destroying "urban renewal." they made all the same arguments then you do now. would never be allowed to happen now.

I understand that for certain things. But these days EVERYTHING is put in that category. It's so easy to label something "art".

I'm not the only one who thinks its ugly.
post #62 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Except for all the people actually from San Francisco who say that it's in a backwater and that the fountain is an eyesore.

Don't use the word 'fanboy' here, either.

Nobody, I repeat, nobody, who knows anything about San Francisco, would call Union Square a "backwater"--FANBOY!
post #63 of 65
Originally Posted by popnfresh View Post
Nobody, I repeat, nobody, who knows anything about San Francisco, would call Union Square a "backwater"

 

Anyone from the area want to chime in again, since poppy here seems to have missed it the first time? :p

post #64 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


You might lose that bet. Although the Giants tried for many years to get the city to participate in building them a new stadium, the supervisors and electorate never went for it and Pac Bell Park (now AT&T park) was privately financed. Similarly, the 49ers tried and failed to make a deal with the city, and so they are building a new stadium in
Santa Clara. The NBA Warriors were once in San Francisco, could not get a publicly financed gym, and so moved to Oakland. The new owner of the Warriors is planning to build a privately financed arena a few blocks from the baseball stadium and move the Warriors back to SF. Your premise is misinformed.

 

And that is a bet I am happy to lose any day. Government should not be involved in financing sports teams. 

post #65 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

And that is a bet I am happy to lose any day. Government should not be involved in financing sports teams. 

"Santa Clara 49ers" just doesn't have a good ring to it. Oh well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple must modify Union Square store plans to save fountain, says City of San Francisco