or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's first D.C. store facing repeated opposition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's first D.C. store facing repeated opposition

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
The wait for Apple's first retail store in the nation's capital will reportedly drag on, as local preservationists have been unable to see eye-to-eye with the Mac maker on a design for the new shop.

The Cupertino-based company acquired a building in the historic Georgetown district more than a year ago with the intention of demolishing the structure and replacing it with a flashy high-profile Apple store.

Although it's since been cleared to raze the building at 1229 Wisconsin Ave., Apple has been unable to pass its design proposals for the new store through a review process governed by a pair of local preservationist bodies, according to the Georgetown Current [PDF].

The paper reported last week that the Georgetown advisory neighborhood commission rejected the third consecutive proposal from the electronics company at a December 2nd meeting, and that the Old Georgetown Board did the same at its own meeting two days later.

Concern that Apple's design may be too radical for the surrounding neighborhood appears to be the primary issue. Its most recent proposal calls for a glass first story "with a solid-stone upper facade punctuated by a large window shaped like Apples logo."

"The board felt that the design turned the building into a billboard," said Tom Luebke, a spokesman for the Old Georgetown Board tasked with approving new building designs for the historic district.

Apple's first design proposal in September of 2007 included an a glass lower story and a second floor that featured punched windows. When that design was rejected, it returned this summer with an all-glass proposal, which was similarly shot down.

"That first time, like every time after, it was a question of scale, said Luebke, who noted that the board was not keen on the sprawling glass facades. "The board wanted something less autonomous, something that supports the historic district."

Apple must now return to the drawing board and come up with yet another proposal should it wish to proceed with plans for the Wisconsin Ave. shop.

In its struggle to pass a proposal for the Georgetown store, it was recently reported that Apple has failed to pay the $70,162.17 in taxes it owes since purchasing the property. The more than year-long delay has led the city's government to issue two penalties that have now boosted the company's taxes owed to $84,545.42.
post #2 of 62
They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want? I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it. Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it... Makes be proud to live in America! *end sarcasm*

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #3 of 62
This is NOT Apple's first DC-area store, just the first one in DC. The first DC-area store was at Tyson's Corner, which opened in 2001. The others are at Fair Oaks Mall, Pentagon City Mall, Montgomery Mall, Bethesda Row, Columbia Mall, and on Clarendon Blvd in Arlington. The store in DC will be the eighth DC-area store, not the first.
post #4 of 62
They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want? I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it. Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it... Makes be proud to live in America! *end sarcasm*


Great. I'll be building a trailer park next to your house. I'm sure you won't mind. Sheesh.
post #5 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panu View Post

This is NOT Apple's first DC-area store, just the first one in DC. The first DC-area store was at Tyson's Corner, which opened in 2001. The others are at Fair Oaks Mall, Pentagon City Mall, Montgomery Mall, Bethesda Row, Columbia Mall, and on Clarendon Blvd in Arlington. The store in DC will be the eighth DC-area store, not the first.

Fair enough.

Kasper
EIC- AppleInsider.com
Questions and comments to : kasper@appleinsider.com
Reply
EIC- AppleInsider.com
Questions and comments to : kasper@appleinsider.com
Reply
post #6 of 62
I'm not surprised. Georgetown is known for pulling this kind of crap. As someone who lived in DC for nearly 10 years, and walked through Georgetown pretty much every day, I'd have to say this is not Apple being too weird, but Georgetown being uptight. If the new site is where I think it is, there are already plenty of modern shops there like Restoration Hardware, etc., and I find it hard to believe that Apple would come up with a design that wouldn't fit in perfectly with the area. It's just not like them to ignore their surroundings.

From what I've heard, many years ago the fine folks of Georgetown prevented the metro (subway) from building a station there, and newer residents could not be more pissed that they are denied such a useful/convenient form of mass transit, one that the rest of the damn city enjoys. All because they feared, ahem, shall we say, urban encroachment.
post #7 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want? I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it. Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it... Makes be proud to live in America! *end sarcasm*


Nah - I'm glad there is a committee to approve this stuff - apple isn't part of their community, they are.

Have you ever been to a developing country? The architecture is usually disgusting. One guy decides he wants to build something from a Sci-fi movie and the guy next door to him decides he wants a Roman temple and then the woman next to them finds a tile manufacturer who has an over supply of some cheap miss-matched tiles and she decides to make that her facade. Meanwhile some other person isn't filling his building, so he decides to turn it into a giant advertising board with a couple hundred 20x40 billboards all over it - each one trying to be brighter and uglier than the one next to it so people will notice.

people who live in these communities have an interest and Apple has a different interest - Apple knew of the local community interest before they bought the place, or else someone is an idiot.
post #8 of 62
The U.S. is in a massive economic downturn, Apple wants to build a massive store hire construction company to build it and after hire more people to man it. The historic committee as a problem with glass frontage. People wonder why the economic situation is the way it is.
post #9 of 62
It is important for neighborhoods to have influence over the character of the buildings that are built; I don't object to that in the least. I think Apple's ego in the matter might be pushing things too hard on a number of stores, but I understand that the store IS a billboard to them.

As for the back taxes, it is unfortunate that Apple has not paid. The better leverage is in the $250k+ of sales taxes and ~$2MM in wages per year lost because of the store not moving forward.

Having worked on a few corporate image buildings, it is very difficult to change to accommodate a single locality because it means that every locality will try and pressure change. It dramatically increases the cost, and often lowers the benefit of the project significantly.
post #10 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

It is important for neighborhoods to have influence over the character of the buildings that are built; I don't object to that in the least. I think Apple's ego in the matter might be pushing things too hard on a number of stores, but I understand that the store IS a billboard to them....

Agreed.

Personally, I don't think there's much point in even talking about this though without some kind of pictures or plans being available. Things like this are all about subtleties of form and the specific history of the area. Minimally, they are concerned with what the buildings on either side look like also. None of this is known to us at this point, and despite waiting for that horrible PDF to load, the original newspaper article didn't think it relevant to put pictures in either.

There is no way from the minimal descriptions in the article to know what the proposed building will look like or what the surrounding area is like, so Apple could be completely out on a limb here or the council could be just being jerks. In determining who is right at such an arm's length, it's almost going to be an "insert your prejudice here" kind of discussion, which is hardly worth having.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #11 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pachomius View Post

people who live in these communities have an interest and Apple has a different interest - Apple knew of the local community interest before they bought the place, or else someone is an idiot.

yes Apple probably did know there would be local concerns. But they likely weren't told they would be cock blocked at every turn.

other than the taxes issue, it sounds like they are trying. Frankly I can't believe there's not some way to just sue for the right to do whatever the hell they want so long as it doesn't violate traffic codes, building codes etc.

I mean it's not like they are trying to be a legal crack den. they want the logo on the store so people know that it's an Apple store. especially when it doesn't have the now iconic glass cube appearance.

yes it might have gone over better if they had just remodeled the older building instead of razing it but who knows what the story was with the structure, the wiring etc. perhaps it was so old it would have been way too expensive. but regardless I suspect we aren't getting the whole story here.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #12 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by dequardo View Post

They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want? I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it. Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it... Makes be proud to live in America! *end sarcasm*


Great. I'll be building a trailer park next to your house. I'm sure you won't mind. Sheesh.

With respect, that is a ridiculous argument. Apple's stores are about as simple, elegant, and minimal as you can get. The only branding on the store at all is one simple lighted Apple.

It isn't like Apple is trying to throw up a "Ripley's Believe It or Not" from the Las Vegas strip.

Apple should take out a full page ad in the local paper showing their proposed design and explaining that it was rejected. Then we could get an accurate gauge of public opinion. If most people agreed that it was some kind of eyesore, fine. Apple changes the design more. If the public gives the thumbs up, Apple moves ahead with no further bureaucratic delays.

Seems simple to me.
post #13 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pachomius View Post

Nah - I'm glad there is a committee to approve this stuff - apple isn't part of their community, they are.

Have you ever been to a developing country? The architecture is usually disgusting. One guy decides he wants to build something from a Sci-fi movie and the guy next door to him decides he wants a Roman temple and then the woman next to them finds a tile manufacturer who has an over supply of some cheap miss-matched tiles and she decides to make that her facade. Meanwhile some other person isn't filling his building, so he decides to turn it into a giant advertising board with a couple hundred 20x40 billboards all over it - each one trying to be brighter and uglier than the one next to it so people will notice.

people who live in these communities have an interest and Apple has a different interest - Apple knew of the local community interest before they bought the place, or else someone is an idiot.

From an architectural perspective, it is important to understand that a thriving community is not locked in time, and that the neighborhood be allowed to evolve to represent changing styles and realities of society. Personally, I find the homogeneity of many developing countries much worse than the few outlandish buildings you see.

If a building has historical value, or a neighborhood has a historical registration, existing buildings should not be permitted to be demolished.

Check out Google Street Views of the address. I imagine their architectural commentary amounts largely to "add some fake columns to break up the facade."
post #14 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Frankly I can't believe there's not some way to just sue for the right to do whatever the hell they want so long as it doesn't violate traffic codes, building codes etc.

The historic preservation committee I'm sure has the support of the other land owners in the area who purchased their properties in confidence that their investments would not be jeopardized by someone putting up giant logos, flashing neon lights or similar distracting nuisances. Apple just needs a better architect.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #15 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

yes Apple probably did know there would be local concerns. But they likely weren't told they would be cock blocked at every turn.

other than the taxes issue, it sounds like they are trying. Frankly I can't believe there's not some way to just sue for the right to do whatever the hell they want so long as it doesn't violate traffic codes, building codes etc.

I mean it's not like they are trying to be a legal crack den. they want the logo on the store so people know that it's an Apple store. especially when it doesn't have the now iconic glass cube appearance.

yes it might have gone over better if they had just remodeled the older building instead of razing it but who knows what the story was with the structure, the wiring etc. perhaps it was so old it would have been way too expensive. but regardless I suspect we aren't getting the whole story here.

If Apple didn't know the nature of the community they're trying to build in, then it's their fault. Are you suggesting that instead of local communities having control over their own community, that the State or the Federal gov't make the rules? Maybe the fed or state gov. should also determine what roads are allowed to go where and how high buildings should be in every city - let's vote in a dictator who controls everything about our lives!

It's a community - THEY decide what their interests are.
post #16 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leppo View Post

I'm not surprised. Georgetown is known for pulling this kind of crap. As someone who lived in DC for nearly 10 years, and walked through Georgetown pretty much every day, I'd have to say this is not Apple being too weird, but Georgetown being uptight. If the new site is where I think it is, there are already plenty of modern shops there like Restoration Hardware, etc., and I find it hard to believe that Apple would come up with a design that wouldn't fit in perfectly with the area. It's just not like them to ignore their surroundings.

From what I've heard, many years ago the fine folks of Georgetown prevented the metro (subway) from building a station there, and newer residents could not be more pissed that they are denied such a useful/convenient form of mass transit, one that the rest of the damn city enjoys. All because they feared, ahem, shall we say, urban encroachment.

I live in a once beautiful small town that has decided to go modern. As a result, everybody drives to visit and shop a few miles away to another beautiful small town that decided to keep, extend and purify its "old town" look. Now our town just looks ugly.

As the article in The Current states, "The brand has had success placing stores in historic and culturally important spots other than Georgetown. Abrief survey of existing storefronts, however, shows that Apples proposals for the D.C. site more closely echo newer, suburban Apple stores than, for example, the companys stores on Regent Street* in London or in SoHo in New York City.

Those latter storesfacades, however, were historically protected and therefore retained, while the Wisconsin Avenue site will be demolished.

But Apple will somehow have to adjust its design to its surroundings if it wants to proceed, said Luebke. So far, he said, there has been very little context of the historic district."
**, Apple has done it before and I would expect will do it again.

Plus, after reading the entire article in The Current, I side with the decision. Much like when a close family member or friend passes on, we wished that we had stayed in contact more often. Now it is too late.

* http://www.apple.com/uk/retail/regentstreet/
http://www.apple.com/retail/soho/
** http://www.currentnewspapers.com/adm....%2024%201.pdf
post #17 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by dequardo View Post

They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want? I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it. Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it... Makes be proud to live in America! *end sarcasm*


Great. I'll be building a trailer park next to your house. I'm sure you won't mind. Sheesh.

Go ahead...there's no land available around me. And whats wrong with trailer parks? People gotta live somewhere you know. Not all trailer parks are cruddy looking places. Some are actually very nice.

And NO...I do not live in a trailer park!

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #18 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pachomius View Post

If Apple didn't know the nature of the community they're trying to build in, then it's their fault.

I agree completely. Local communities always have zoning / building rules. Apple knew the game before they bought the site. Apple has to live by the rules. When you buy property you better know what can and cannot be done.

I'm sure the design is beautiful... just not in that area.
post #19 of 62
well here in Maine many folks / companies have to deal with the same thing all the time they do what they have to, too fit in.

In Freeport (just down the street from L.L. Bean) McDonalds purchased a old farm house, with intent on tearing down never happened, but McDonalds is there in a nice looking old farm house with SMALL signs. Other businesses in the area had to do the same thing, that being USE the building that was there, and make it work.

Camden, Rockland Maine is much the same way, and this is a "Nose in the air, my shiet doesn't stick community" and folks make it work.

Apple should ask them what they want, or can live with, and build it. The droves of folks going in and out all day, will more then make up for the lack of signage / logo's. It's that, or just build it somewhere else.

Almost every community in America has some kind of planning board, and in MOST cases folks get by. Some don't any way to many downtown areas look like shiet, and are run down because some folks just won't give in. The people need to speak up the planning board will listen, or loose their jobs.

In the area I'm in, they have been talking about putting parking meters EVERYWHERE, and ALL of the area business folks said "Do it, and you'll be forcing us to re-locate, and if we all move, who is it, that will be parking down here, and how much will the city make on empty parking stalls?

It's safe to say, this area of DC doesn't need any new schools, or fire equipment, or tax dollars, and that's good for them. But if they do, and they don't want their property taxes going up, then let the planning board know what you think.

Skip
post #20 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

... Check out Google Street Views of the address. I imagine their architectural commentary amounts largely to "add some fake columns to break up the facade."

On seeing a pic of the actual store and area, I have to say Apple is completely wrong on this one. It's a lovely store and the facade should just be left as is. There is even a large obvious central niche at exactly the right spot to put an Apple logo sign in.

Replacing the store front with a glass sheet (as Apple did in both proposals they have submitted so far), would be an abomination.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #21 of 62
There's got to be something more to this, the sneaker store next door to it has a freeggin Puma logo, along with a big sign that says Puma, and they're complaining about Apple just having a logo display? WTF. before saying anything i think ya should look at the google street view lol, they should be proud apple is even considering building anything in that sh*thole
post #22 of 62
"it was recently reported that Apple has failed to pay the $70,162.17 in taxes it owes since purchasing the property. The more than year-long delay has led the city's government to issue two penalties that have now boosted the company's taxes owed to $84,545.42."

It looks like Apple got in on some of those sub-prime mortgages.
post #23 of 62
WOW, these board is just fighting for the sake of attention.

Apple can build a store right across the river. Just really hate when these old farts fight something like Apple store and let "joe shmoe" have its hot-dog stand on every corner in DC.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #24 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want?

Well, of course, that's the law. Owning something doesn't allow you to do whatever you want with it!
Owning your kid doesn't give you life and death power over them. Owning your house doesn't allow you to dump your waste directly in the environment. Owning your car doesn't allow you to drive it at 200mph wherever you want.

It's the same with buildings. For instance, owning a historical monument doesn't allow you to demolish it. Owning it lets you use it, but the historical monument still belongs to the common good. Private property has always been limited by the common good, nothing new here.

Quote:
I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it.

That would be very wrong. The law should be the same for everyone - being Apple should not be enough to escape the rules that apply to the rest of us. Apple owns the building. Private ownership implies taxes. If you don't pay the taxes, you're breaking the law and should be punished. End of story.
The fact that Apple cannot enjoy its building to its full extent is its own fault. If someone else than Apple owned the building and merely rented it, the taxes would be paid. There is no reason the local tax payers should pay instead of Apple for its lack of planning and negociation...

Quote:
Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it...

Welcome to the real world. BTW, the same applies to your house if you're in any kind of protected area, whether for historical, natural or other reasons. As it should be.
The historical value of a district will outlast most of us. Moreover, the historical value of a district, if properly managed, is an asset that benefits all the other tax payers. There is no reason to damage the common good to suit one's private needs...
post #25 of 62
I wish they would have chosen a different location. Metro Center, Dupont, Columbia Heights... Georgetown isn't the greatest location for a majority of the city, but I'm sure it's more about the college students (Georgetown and GW are within walking distance). Logan Circle would have been interesting or even Woodly, but again, I think it's more about the students.

That being said, they should pay taxes on the building, period.
post #26 of 62
It appears that the place Apple bought is this building. An Apple Store wouldn't be out of place on that street, and the location is pretty good, it looks fairly busy and it's right at an intersection.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #27 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lictor View Post

Well, of course, that's the law. Owning something doesn't allow you to do whatever you want with it!
Owning your kid doesn't give you life and death power over them. Owning your house doesn't allow you to dump your waste directly in the environment. Owning your car doesn't allow you to drive it at 200mph wherever you want.

It's the same with buildings. For instance, owning a historical monument doesn't allow you to demolish it. Owning it lets you use it, but the historical monument still belongs to the common good. Private property has always been limited by the common good, nothing new here.



That would be very wrong. The law should be the same for everyone - being Apple should not be enough to escape the rules that apply to the rest of us. Apple owns the building. Private ownership implies taxes. If you don't pay the taxes, you're breaking the law and should be punished. End of story.
The fact that Apple cannot enjoy its building to its full extent is its own fault. If someone else than Apple owned the building and merely rented it, the taxes would be paid. There is no reason the local tax payers should pay instead of Apple for its lack of planning and negociation...



Welcome to the real world. BTW, the same applies to your house if you're in any kind of protected area, whether for historical, natural or other reasons. As it should be.
The historical value of a district will outlast most of us. Moreover, the historical value of a district, if properly managed, is an asset that benefits all the other tax payers. There is no reason to damage the common good to suit one's private needs...

Thanks for wasting your own time in stating everything I already knew....

The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.

Historic crap doesn't last forever....

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #28 of 62
the article says they already have permission to raze the existing structure, right? So level what is there - and leave it an empty lot - get the tax assessor to reevaluate the now vacant lot to reduce the taxes - then refuse to build anything or to sell the lot and see what the city planners think of that.

Isn't the point of the facade of any commercial property to act as a giant bill board for that company? and its not like they want to put up a giant scaffolding with multi colored lights and make the area look like the side of the highway.
post #29 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.

No, actually, it doesn't sound like you know much, since you fail to understand what the greater good is about.

It's like a car. You own it, you can drive it around and enjoy it. But you can't drive into some parts of the country - military bases, private properties... Likewise, you can't drive it in ways that would endanger other people. And when you're done using it, you can't dump it wherever you wish either.

That's what the greater good is about. Your personnal freedom is fine, but your freedom stops where it jeopardize the freedom of other people - current or futur.

Quote:
Historic crap doesn't last forever....

Well, actually, I live in some "historic crap" dating from a century ago. I have some "historic crap" ranging from 200 to 600 year less than a mile from home, and people also live in them. And I do have some 2000 year old "historic crap" a couple of miles from home. This doesn't prevent the creation of "modern crap" that will become historic for the futur generations either.

All this historic crap draws more than 25 million tourists a year to my city. This means an income of several billion a year for private and public businesses and emploiement for more than 12% of the population. So, yes, I do care about historic crap and I would like for them to last as long as possible. Because the alternative is that I would have to pay taxes to cover the loss of revenues once the tourists are gone, and I certainly enjoy having local taxes low enough that I don't even have to budget for them...
post #30 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Go ahead...there's no land available around me.

There will be land when we buy the surrounding buildings and demolish them.

Quote:
And whats wrong with trailer parks? People gotta live somewhere you know. Not all trailer parks are cruddy looking places. Some are actually very nice.

But we wanna build a cruddy trailer park...
post #31 of 62
Quote:
Thanks for wasting your own time in stating everything I already knew....

The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.

Historic crap doesn't last forever...

you sound very very out of touch with the world around you. maybe in your own home you can do what you want but not when it affects the public, including local taxpayers who live and work on this street. you need to rethink your empathy and civil responsibility.

did you vote in favour of gay marriage? they "own" their bodies why can't they do what they want with it right? (just an example but be honest)

here's a pic of the store to be razed, i think it works as an apple store

http://www.ifoapplestore.com/photos/...sconsin_dc.jpg
post #32 of 62
Why replace it at all - just etch the Apple logo on that big glass window that is already there and be done with it.
post #33 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

There will be land when we buy the surrounding buildings and demolish them.


But we wanna build a cruddy trailer park...

Thats impossible...I own all the land around me.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #34 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatfarm View Post

you sound very very out of touch with the world around you. maybe in your own home you can do what you want but not when it affects the public, including local taxpayers who live and work on this street. you need to rethink your empathy and civil responsibility.

did you vote in favour of gay marriage? they "own" their bodies why can't they do what they want with it right? (just an example but be honest)

here's a pic of the store to be razed, i think it works as an apple store

http://www.ifoapplestore.com/photos/...sconsin_dc.jpg

How does Apple building an Apple Store effect the public? Its not like Apple is putting in a building with huge glowing neon signs. I guess its just too bad DC doesn't want the potential tax dollars.... If I were Apple I wouldn't pay the taxes either until I got what I wanted on MY OWN LAND!

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #35 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.

Of course you can't do what you want with land. How about I dump toxic waste next to your house? Land is not a personal item like clothing or furniture. It's a finite resource, for one thing. For another, most land uses, and certainly construction, have an impact on neighbors and the community in general. In a democracy communities get to decide how they want to live. If an area is zoned to require board approval, that's what Apple has to deal with. Nobody is forcing Apple to build a store there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Historic crap doesn't last forever....

Not if it were up to people who think like you. Fortunately, lots of people don't think that way, and we have historic districts, parks, and buildings rather than bland corporate uniformity everywhere in the land.
post #36 of 62
Quote:
How does Apple building an Apple Store effect the public?

you did not say apple is just building a store whats the big deal you said i can do WHATEVER i want with my land, that's where i take issue, not if its neon or not but simply that you can do what you like.

to some a glass and silver building IS like neon to you, respect that.

regardless of YOUR idea of what the local taxpaying public in georgetown wants that's not for just anyone to buy land and decide, respect that they want things done their way in their taxpaying district and get off your "i own it i can do whatever i want with it" high horse.

the tide of sentiment against you here clearly shows you're in the minority.

again apple store on this street? - not so bad
"anything i want i own it" - no way my friend, you're out of touch.

do your neighbours like you?
post #37 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattjumbo View Post

With respect, that is a ridiculous argument. Apple's stores are about as simple, elegant, and minimal as you can get.

While everybody loves elegant, the same is not true for simple and minimal. Minimalistic design doesn't fit at all with a historic district. You list this as a plus, but in this case it isn't.

Also, whatever happened to "think different"? Apple wants to build pretty much the same store everywhere, as does every other corporate chain. I really like it better when you look around at a street corner and can actually tell what city you are in.
post #38 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

How does Apple building an Apple Store effect the public? Its not like Apple is putting in a building with huge glowing neon signs. I guess its just too bad DC doesn't want the potential tax dollars.... If I were Apple I wouldn't pay the taxes either until I got what I wanted on MY OWN LAND!

By buying into a community, you implicitly agree to the historical, social, and legal norms of that community. Things such as building codes are explicit agreements, and most communities have them to some degree; you cannot just build anything you want on a piece of land, even if you're Apple (I know its hard for some to fathom). Georgetown's public and zoning committees have every right to scrutinize the look of Apple's store until they feel its facade is appropriate for the surroundings. You also said its ridiculous to pay taxes on a building if it doesn't "look" the way you want it to. Besides this notion being completely absurd, go tell that to Georgetown. I'm sure the town's officials would laugh in your face.
post #39 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcrown View Post

The U.S. is in a massive economic downturn, Apple wants to build a massive store hire construction company to build it and after hire more people to man it. The historic committee as a problem with glass frontage. People wonder why the economic situation is the way it is.

The U.S. is in an economic downturn, but Georgetown isn't. It's very affluent and populated by DC's old money and a bunch of trust fund-fed college students -- a retailers' dream. So the community has no incentive to lower its standards for Apple or anyone else. (Besides that, I don't think anyone is blaming the economic downturn on land use and zoning regulations, so it's a non sequiter argument anyway.)

Georgetown has a very distinctive look -- even the freaking Johnny Rockets looks like it belongs there. I don't see why Apple couldn't just do what it did with the SoHo store: keep the architecture in theme with the surroundings and hang an Apple sign off the doorway. Not everything has to be a concrete and glass cube with a big glowing white Apple.
27" 3.06 GHz iMac

16 GB iPhone 4
80 GB iPod Classic
1 GB 2nd Gen iPod Shuffle

Apple TV (2nd gen)
Apple TV (1st gen 40 GB)
AirPort Extreme Base Station (802.11n)
Reply
27" 3.06 GHz iMac

16 GB iPhone 4
80 GB iPod Classic
1 GB 2nd Gen iPod Shuffle

Apple TV (2nd gen)
Apple TV (1st gen 40 GB)
AirPort Extreme Base Station (802.11n)
Reply
post #40 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leppo View Post

I'm not surprised. Georgetown is known for pulling this kind of crap. As someone who lived in DC for nearly 10 years, and walked through Georgetown pretty much every day, I'd have to say this is not Apple being too weird, but Georgetown being uptight. If the new site is where I think it is, there are already plenty of modern shops there like Restoration Hardware, etc., and I find it hard to believe that Apple would come up with a design that wouldn't fit in perfectly with the area. It's just not like them to ignore their surroundings.

From what I've heard, many years ago the fine folks of Georgetown prevented the metro (subway) from building a station there, and newer residents could not be more pissed that they are denied such a useful/convenient form of mass transit, one that the rest of the damn city enjoys. All because they feared, ahem, shall we say, urban encroachment.

I think the real reason why there is no metro station in Georgetown is that the construction of the tunnel and the station, as well as the vibration from the trains, combined with the local geology, would have caused too much structural damage to the buildings. Of course, if you are Kevin Kostner in the movie No Way Out, you can use the fictitious metro station in the Georgetown Mall.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's first D.C. store facing repeated opposition