Apple is all about user experience. And in this case, the users are Apple employees. Yeah, they could make a monstrous ego tower if they wanted, but instead they're attempting to make a building that can both house a large number of people and still have a human scale.
A giant tower like the Eye of Sauron but with a glowing Apple symbol?
But Jobs is building a very low-key, understated structure. There's no reason for Apple to exist in cramped quarters, and Jobs apparently does not require a monument to his ego. (See by way of contrast: Trump Towers.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Add PanAm to your list. They crushed Penn Station for an abysmal building which also succeeded in destroying one of New York's greatest urban vistas. All for the purpose of having their corporate name displayed in neon high above the city. A lot of good that did them, in the end.
From the rendering of the Apple HQ, the statement is hardly so bold though. The size of the building won't read from the ground, and actually neither will the plan. That's the really odd thing about this building -- the plan catches the eye, but this will only be seen by birds and people in airplanes. Hard to know exactly what they are going for.
I agree. I didn't intend to compare this building to other HQs in terms of quality. I like it very much. I just worry that Steve's legendary focus may be somewhat diverted and diluted by the attention and energy I am sure he will direct toward the creation of his signature building.
A giant tower like the Eye of Sauron but with a glowing Apple symbol?
One phone to rule them all, one phone to find them (illegal location services tracking joke). One phone to bring them all and to the contracts bind them.
One phone to rule them all, one phone to find them (illegal location services tracking joke). One phone to bring them all and to the contracts bind them.
Cool pic.
It's a tough job, but after Gates' and Microsoft's retirement someone had to do it.
From the rendering of the Apple HQ, the statement is hardly so bold though. The size of the building won't read from the ground, and actually neither will the plan. That's the really odd thing about this building -- the plan catches the eye, but this will only be seen by birds and people in airplanes. Hard to know exactly what they are going for.
"Hard to know . . . "? Easy to see the answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb
Apple is all about user experience. And in this case, the users are Apple employees. Yeah, they could make a monstrous ego tower if they wanted, but instead they're attempting to make a building that can both house a large number of people and still have a human scale.
It is about human scale, and fitting into nature. No right angles, not much building visible from any point of view, a garden both outside and inside the ring. Simple, tasteful, and certain to be an enduring statement of the company's worldview.
If the scale shown on the plan view of the building is to be believed, the building is 500m in diameter and what appears to be the central corridor is 450m in diameter.
and type circumference of a circle 450 m in diameter and the circumference comes out at 1,414 m or 0.878 miles.
In area, the interior open space is equivalent to 2.1 times the area of the base of the Great Pyramid in Egypt or 16 FIFA sanctioned international soccer pitches. Plenty of room for sporting arenas of all sorts.
[QUOTE=IQatEdo;1922544]If the scale shown on the plan view of the building is to be believed, the building is 500m in diameter and what appears to be the central corridor is 450m in diameter.
I ask because I thought that Penn Station was near MSG. Perhaps it was moved there because of Pan Am? If so, that would be an interesting bit of history....
Sorry, I have mixed up two abominations. The original Penn Station was demolished in the early 1960s to make way for the new Madison Square Gardens (another horrid building). The station platforms remained underneath. The PanAm building destroyed one of the city's best vista, on Park Avenue, nearby and right around the same time.
Grand Central was spared a similar fate in large part because New Yorkers were so horrified by having lost Penn Central.
It is about human scale, and fitting into nature. No right angles, not much building visible from any point of view, a garden both outside and inside the ring. Simple, tasteful, and certain to be an enduring statement of the company's worldview.
I get the perspective trick, but I'm not convinced this is the reason for adhering to this particular plan, as there are other ways of achieving the same affect.
If the scale shown on the plan view of the building is to be believed, the building is 500m in diameter and what appears to be the central corridor is 450m in diameter.
and type circumference of a circle 450 m in diameter and the circumference comes out at 1,414 m or 0.878 miles.
As other people have hinted, it's probably not going to be 0.878 miles to the most distant part as your post's title suggests. It doesn't look like the building is broken up where you can't pass certain areas, at least from the available floor plan. The farthest part of the building from any other point in the building is about half the circumference away if you must walk the corridors. Any farther and you just walk the other direction. Or go to the ground level and cross the center green space (sorry, the proper term escapes me right now).
As other people have hinted, it's probably not going to be 0.878 miles to the most distant part as your post's title suggests. It doesn't look like the building is broken up where you can't pass certain areas, at least from the available floor plan. The farthest part of the building from any other point in the building is about half the circumference away if you must walk the corridors. Any farther and you just walk the other direction. Or go to the ground level and cross the center green space (sorry, the proper term escapes me right now).
Wasn't suggesting anything in particular. The corridor appears to be about 0.9 miles long. Someone was asking what the circumference would be.
I don't see any parking in the renders. It would be interesting if they were able to put the parking underneath the structure to maintain the overall park-like look of the campus. When I was at the Pixar campus many years ago I was very impressed with the architecture. I was told that Steve Jobs had a lot of control over the technology and appearance behind the construction of the Pixar Campus. The building actually sits inside of a reinforced concrete tub that still holds it at ground level. The tub is roughly 4 feet deep and is approximately 12 feet wider and longer than the building itself. The building piers are massive steel posts and sit on top of huge ball bearings that allow the building move during tremors. The outer perimeter of the building has an enormous rubber belt around it (about 6ft. wide) that comes in contact with the perimeter of the reinforced concrete tub. Basically the building does sort of "hover" inside of this tub. I'd assume a similar technology would be used on this new campus. I'd like to see them set another example by adding a few wind turbines and or solar to the entire roof of the building (not covering the skylights of course. Apple has always strived to be green and they could really shine with this new structure.
Comments
I think that Apple is trying to bring humanity into this 1970's view of a futuristic utopia. Which is awesome.
iTopia?
Apple is all about user experience. And in this case, the users are Apple employees. Yeah, they could make a monstrous ego tower if they wanted, but instead they're attempting to make a building that can both house a large number of people and still have a human scale.
A giant tower like the Eye of Sauron but with a glowing Apple symbol?
But Jobs is building a very low-key, understated structure. There's no reason for Apple to exist in cramped quarters, and Jobs apparently does not require a monument to his ego. (See by way of contrast: Trump Towers.)
Add PanAm to your list. They crushed Penn Station for an abysmal building which also succeeded in destroying one of New York's greatest urban vistas. All for the purpose of having their corporate name displayed in neon high above the city. A lot of good that did them, in the end.
From the rendering of the Apple HQ, the statement is hardly so bold though. The size of the building won't read from the ground, and actually neither will the plan. That's the really odd thing about this building -- the plan catches the eye, but this will only be seen by birds and people in airplanes. Hard to know exactly what they are going for.
I agree. I didn't intend to compare this building to other HQs in terms of quality. I like it very much. I just worry that Steve's legendary focus may be somewhat diverted and diluted by the attention and energy I am sure he will direct toward the creation of his signature building.
A giant tower like the Eye of Sauron but with a glowing Apple symbol?
One phone to rule them all, one phone to find them (illegal location services tracking joke). One phone to bring them all and to the contracts bind them.
One phone to rule them all, one phone to find them (illegal location services tracking joke). One phone to bring them all and to the contracts bind them.
Cool pic.
It's a tough job, but after Gates' and Microsoft's retirement someone had to do it.
From the rendering of the Apple HQ, the statement is hardly so bold though. The size of the building won't read from the ground, and actually neither will the plan. That's the really odd thing about this building -- the plan catches the eye, but this will only be seen by birds and people in airplanes. Hard to know exactly what they are going for.
"Hard to know . . . "? Easy to see the answer:
Apple is all about user experience. And in this case, the users are Apple employees. Yeah, they could make a monstrous ego tower if they wanted, but instead they're attempting to make a building that can both house a large number of people and still have a human scale.
It is about human scale, and fitting into nature. No right angles, not much building visible from any point of view, a garden both outside and inside the ring. Simple, tasteful, and certain to be an enduring statement of the company's worldview.
iTopia?
Hah! Where do I sign up?
Cool pic.
It's a tough job, but after Gates' and Microsoft's retirement someone had to do it.
Steve Ballmer is stewing -->
Go here:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/
and type circumference of a circle 450 m in diameter and the circumference comes out at 1,414 m or 0.878 miles.
In area, the interior open space is equivalent to 2.1 times the area of the base of the Great Pyramid in Egypt or 16 FIFA sanctioned international soccer pitches. Plenty of room for sporting arenas of all sorts.
Go here:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/
and type circumference of a circle 450 m in diameter and the circumference comes out at 1,414 m or 0.878 miles.
[...]/QUOTE]
Or you could, say, just multiply the diameter of 1615' given in the fourth sentence of the original post by Pi.
Maybe you could even estimate it without a calculator if multiplying by 3 isn't too hard for you...
2 x pi x r
Twice as big as Steve Job's other firm?
Twice as big as Steve Job's other firm?
Very good
(Other ex-firm)
Hey!! I too want to work at the 300,000 square feet research facility.
(We assume you meant 3,000,000 sq. ft. as round-off size
for the Apple headquarters footprint.)
For your edification, just go over to NASA Ames Research Center
next door, which is about that size for its extant buildings.
Now Google HQ adds 1.0-1.2 mega square feet to that, and although
re-zoning within the ARC master plan makes their original 2.5-3M sq. ft.
variable you might enjoy an R&D sandbox like that to play in!
--retiarius
P.S. When I interviewed with sjobs to jump from NASA Ames
to NeXT many moons ago I balked, but in hindsight it
may have worked out ... (as it turned out my investment
in AAPL while working elsewhere paid more than my
engineering salary during the equivalent interval)
Penn or Grand Central?
I ask because I thought that Penn Station was near MSG. Perhaps it was moved there because of Pan Am? If so, that would be an interesting bit of history....
Sorry, I have mixed up two abominations. The original Penn Station was demolished in the early 1960s to make way for the new Madison Square Gardens (another horrid building). The station platforms remained underneath. The PanAm building destroyed one of the city's best vista, on Park Avenue, nearby and right around the same time.
Grand Central was spared a similar fate in large part because New Yorkers were so horrified by having lost Penn Central.
"Hard to know . . . "? Easy to see the answer:
It is about human scale, and fitting into nature. No right angles, not much building visible from any point of view, a garden both outside and inside the ring. Simple, tasteful, and certain to be an enduring statement of the company's worldview.
I get the perspective trick, but I'm not convinced this is the reason for adhering to this particular plan, as there are other ways of achieving the same affect.
You don't understand much about Architecture at all do you?
He doesn't understand about Art much either.
If the scale shown on the plan view of the building is to be believed, the building is 500m in diameter and what appears to be the central corridor is 450m in diameter.
Go here:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/
and type circumference of a circle 450 m in diameter and the circumference comes out at 1,414 m or 0.878 miles.
As other people have hinted, it's probably not going to be 0.878 miles to the most distant part as your post's title suggests. It doesn't look like the building is broken up where you can't pass certain areas, at least from the available floor plan. The farthest part of the building from any other point in the building is about half the circumference away if you must walk the corridors. Any farther and you just walk the other direction. Or go to the ground level and cross the center green space (sorry, the proper term escapes me right now).
As other people have hinted, it's probably not going to be 0.878 miles to the most distant part as your post's title suggests. It doesn't look like the building is broken up where you can't pass certain areas, at least from the available floor plan. The farthest part of the building from any other point in the building is about half the circumference away if you must walk the corridors. Any farther and you just walk the other direction. Or go to the ground level and cross the center green space (sorry, the proper term escapes me right now).
Wasn't suggesting anything in particular. The corridor appears to be about 0.9 miles long. Someone was asking what the circumference would be.