LA Times critic disparages Apple Campus 2 as 'retrograde cocoon'

1679111216

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 305
    Why are you sharing this with us??
  • Reply 162 of 305
    citycity Posts: 522member
    Just like an industrial designer, an architect needs to be "not good enough" pushed to come up with a truly magical solution. So far, I see an extremely competent proposal that hopefully will evolve into a 3 a.m. iPhone equivalent idea.
  • Reply 163 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    It's interesting in a totally laughable sort of way how these boards have developed a corp of instant but otherwise deeply committed architecture and city planning experts. How many of them, I wonder, have ever taken an interest in architecture or city planning before? My guess is approximately zero. And yet these instant experts know to the core of their beings that the new Apple campus is a great exercise in architecture and planning and nothing else could possibly be better. I wonder how many of them had even heard of Christopher Hawthorne before this article was posted here, let alone read his columns for years. My guess is approximately zero. And yet, they are convinced to within a millimeter of their lives that Hawthorne is a know-nothing hack. Their confidence and certainty about subjects and people they know nothing whatsoever about is almost inspirational.



    Accordingly, I have decided to take up neurosurgery. I have heard of it, which should be enough. More than enough, given what I've read here.



    More often than not I find your comments add not much of anything to the discussion.



    Hawthorne's article is more of a review of an upcoming book (probably a friend) than it is a good example of a critique based on architectural theory.
  • Reply 164 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post


    I read the whole article and I thought it was a bit of hackery. This in no way qualifies you to be a neurosurgeon.



    Nor you as an architectural critic, but I guess you missed my point.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    I read it too. At the risk of being seen as self-aggrandizing here is the link to my previous post which addressed this:



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=110



    I wasn't actually defending Hawthorne specifically, but more the concept of being able to judge the quality if his criticism given no knowledge of his work or the work he writes about. I've been reading his stuff for years, and although I have never been especially impressed (LA deserves someone of the caliber of Paul Goldberger), I don't think he's a complete slouch either. No, I think we're talking complete gut reactions here from people with zero knowledge of the subject matter who nevertheless feel compelled to comment on it with total conviction. It's a strange phenomenon, would you not agree?



    To the subject, I happen to think Hawthorne is right on the substance: the concept behind the campus is retrograde. I've said so before. I think he's also correct to pose the question of whether Steve is more interested in progressive ideas in architecture and city planning, or of building a monument to himself. I suspect more the latter. The fact that Hawthorne raised this uncomfortable question seems to offend some, to the point of lashing out. I am amused, to tears.
  • Reply 165 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    More often than not I find your comments add not much of anything to the discussion.



    Hawthorne's article is more of a review of an upcoming book (probably a friend) than it is a good example of a critique based on architectural theory.



    I'm so very sorry, especially since I'm probably the only one here with much actual knowledge of the subject. I often write long detailed posts on topics I know about, such as this one, only to have them ignored by people like you. This is not my fault.
  • Reply 166 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I'm so very sorry, especially since I'm probably the only one here with much actual knowledge of the subject. I often write long detailed posts on topics I know about, such as this one, only to have them ignored by people like you. This is not my fault.



    Ignored... by people like me?? Do you even know who I am.



    You're acting like some rude know nothing snob who feels that they are the only ones with any knowledge on any subject. If someone doesn't agree with you then you brush them off and demean anything that they are trying to say.



    By the way... I seem to have missed your long detailed post on this topic...



    [on edit - I'm absolutely positive that Michael Wilkie would make you look absolutely pathetic on this subject... sadly, he, like you, didn't offer the example that would be required to counterbalance this argument]
  • Reply 167 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I'm so very sorry, especially since I'm probably the only one here with much actual knowledge of the subject. I often write long detailed posts on topics I know about, such as this one, only to have them ignored by people like you. This is not my fault.



    Dr Millmoss is late to the disussion and itching for an argument. Again.
  • Reply 168 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    Ignored... by people like me?? Do you even know who I am.



    You're acting like some rude know nothing snob who feels that they are the only ones with any knowledge on any subject. If someone doesn't agree with you then you brush them off and demean anything that they are trying to say.



    By the way... I seem to have missed your long detailed post on this topic...



    [on edit - I'm absolutely positive that Michael Wilkie would make you look absolutely pathetic on this subject... sadly, he, like you, didn't offer the example that would be required to counterbalance this argument]



    Oh my, why not unleash all the usual generic insults? Sure beats having to make an actual argument.



    We've had at least three threads on this subject already. So I guess you did miss them. You could look them up.
  • Reply 169 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    No, I think we're talking complete gut reactions here from people with zero knowledge of the subject matter who nevertheless feel compelled to comment on it with total conviction. It's a strange phenomenon, would you not agree?



    To the subject, I happen to think Hawthorne is right on the substance: the concept behind the campus is retrograde. I've said so before. I think he's also correct to pose the question of whether Steve is more interested in progressive ideas in architecture and city planning, or of building a monument to himself. I suspect more the latter. The fact that Hawthorne raised this uncomfortable question seems to offend some, to the point of lashing out. I am amused, to tears.



    I do agree, to a point. But that phenomenon is not unique to this thread nor this website. AI is no worse in this regard, and I find somewhat better than most as to the proportion of intelligent to inane remarkage.



    I like your second paragraph above. But I maintain that Hawthorne's claim that Steve was pawning off the building's design as his own is specious at best. He also spends a lot of time characterizing a meeting that he offers no evidence that he actually attended. He actually cites Gawker as a source. I found myself wondering if he visited the building site, or even set foot in Cupertino--as a reader of such a strongly opinionated piece I should not have to.
  • Reply 170 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post


    Dr Millmoss is late to the disussion and itching for an argument. Again.



    Sorry again for not making this my job. Third thread on this topic, at least. I've commented on the others extensively.
  • Reply 171 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post


    Dr Millmoss is late to the disussion and itching for an argument. Again.



    I absolutely hate it when someone starts talking theory (or talking out of their ass) and then gives nothing in return as a concrete example of what they are portraying.



    There are so many factors involved in Apple's decision and I see none of those factors in either Hawthorne's or Millmoss' comments. If they feel that Apple could have done better in this day and age then I'd really like them to lay it out and tell us how they would address all of the problems facing Apple as it tries to house its expanding workforce (ie. traffic, location, theactual building(s)).
  • Reply 172 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Oh my, why not unleash all the usual generic insults? Sure beats having to make an actual argument.



    We've had at least three threads on this subject already. So I guess you did miss them. You could look them up.



    You gave me nothing to argue... just your usual rude comments.
  • Reply 173 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Sorry again for not making this my job. Third thread on this topic, at least. I've commented on the others extensively.



    So you just posted so as to be rude to people. Nice.



    If you have nothing to offer other than insults why not just stay off the thread.
  • Reply 174 of 305
    It'd be nice if we could get back to the subject.
  • Reply 175 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    I do agree, to a point. But that phenomenon is not unique to this thread nor this website. AI is no worse in this regard, and I find somewhat better than most as to the proportion of intelligent to inane remarkage.



    I like your second paragraph above. But I maintain that Hawthorne's claim that Steve was pawning off the building's design as his own is specious at best. He also spends a lot of time characterizing a meeting that he offers no evidence that he actually attended. He actually cites Gawker as a source. I found myself wondering if he visited the building site, or even set foot in Cupertino--as a reader of such a strongly opinionated piece I should not have to.



    You're right, I wasn't claiming this site to be unique, but it seems to have even more binary thinkers than average.



    I didn't get the impression that Hawthorne was saying that Steve was trying to say that he designed the building himself, more that it was being presented as another Apple product for which Steve was ultimately responsible. He didn't have to attend the meeting, it was all on video online. The City Council did indeed provide a reception not even bordering on sycophantic -- it was well over the line. Fair points.
  • Reply 176 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Sorry again for not making this my job. Third thread on this topic, at least. I've commented on the others extensively.



    Guess I can't blame you for timing. It's the spoiling for an argument part that sticks out. Must be baggage from those other threads.
  • Reply 177 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    He can't. He's part of the establishment that is blind to the fact that building a high density workplace in the middle of that suburban sprawl actually starts to reverse the trend of the purely suburban bedroom community.



    The arguments made for urbanization ignore the living arrangement of the existing employees, many of whom already bike to work from the surrounding community. Those living out of bicycle distance are going to drive anyway, not because of where the building is but because of where they chose to live. Locating closer to the freeway actually will reduce the overall environmental impact of the longer distance drivers because they will not need to travel and make traffic on as many surface streets, but can shunt quickly into the garage. Slightly creative working hours can do wonders for managing traffic in and out of a facility like this, where smaller, dispersed, facilities won't feel the need and so add greatly to general surface street traffic.



    Arguing a building is not green because it requires workers to get there is a bit overly dramatic and self-serving. Why aren't there calls for Cupertino and surrounding communities to use the additional property tax revenues towards something constructive like mass transit? This would be much more effective and will motivate future developments in the area to take advantage as well. This would further confound the anti-suburbanites though, because it again fails to demonize land that was considered subject to sprawl.



    A question to all those non-sprawl proponents out there, where do we put all the people? In my lifetime the population of the US has gone from under 200 million to over 300 million, an over 50% increase. Sprawl isn't some artificial fleeing of the cities, it is a forced thing when the core cities are essentially built out and there is resistance to high density vertical development away from the city center. All the good intention in the world to concentrate population cannot win a nimby CEQA lawsuit against anything over three stories high, thus low density is a population enforced constraint despite all the architectural and psychological theory that says it is better to be denser in places.



    Maybe the self-appointed architectural highbrow crowd needs to think about the real world and how to work with it when there is a wonderful opportunity to do so, rather than try to tear down an idea just because it doesn't fit with their chosen theoretical best choice.



    Yes! Thank you!
  • Reply 178 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    It'd be nice if we could get back to the subject.



    Okay... let's start over with a link to the open letter... a much better critique of the campus than the one provided by Hawthorne. At the very least the open letter from Hillel Schocken gives us a proposition as to what should be built.



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...26#post1900626



    I'm still not sure if some of that theory would work... there'd sure be a hell of a lot more problems for council to chew on... and maybe time is of the essence.
  • Reply 179 of 305
    An Angelino critiquing architecture and urban planning.
  • Reply 180 of 305
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    You're right, I wasn't claiming this site to be unique, but it seems to have even more binary thinkers than average.



    Noting wrong with the extreme binary thinking here. After all, that's what could lead to the dialectic.



    I learn little from arguments involving shades of gray. They leave me bored.
Sign In or Register to comment.