No one is arguing basic geometry, but it's a pointless argument to say that Apple design is inefficient because they didn't build a [I]square[/I design]. You get even more of an enclosing boundary from a triangle. On top of that, he ignored that you get even more of an enclosing boundary from a non-square rectangle than you from a square, which he should recognize as having 4 equal sides. But all that is beside the point because this is a building to be used by humans, not a 2 dimension drawing used in a primary school math class.
Exactly, so why are you arguing it? You're just confusing the issue when you argue with those who agree with you on the main ideas.
Quote:
Do to the sheer size of this structure I would image there are at least 2 underground walkways going across the courtyard space.
Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter because even if there isn't a covered walkway across the courtyard you can still get from A to B out of the elements.
Quote:
I'd think there will be prime office space that butts up against a glass wall looking into the courtyard. No matter what you do to curb it [professional] status will naturally unfold.
Supply and demand. Exterior corner offices are the prime offices in rectangular buildings and by geometric necessity a scarce resource. In a round building all offices that have windows are essentially equal, no power corners to fight over or use as ego badges. Sure there will be windowed office vs interior or cube dwellers, but since there will be so many of them, all just as good window-wise as the others, the ego-usefulness is much diminished.
There's a beautiful strip mall along North Wolfe... and the employees can play a game of chicken on the 280... maybe the people living along Homestead will invite the employees into their homes for lunch...
You got me looking at the map. The liquor store north of the gas station on Wolfe could be a good place to hang out. And, whattyaknow, there's a Starbucks! I'd love to see pictures of the laptop species in there.
Anyway, this mandate to make Apple part of the "urban environment" is such miserably misguided limp-wristed ecothink. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Gertrude Stein on Oakland comes to mind. "There is no there there." Apple is putting something there, but it's for them, not us. They are not building a tourist destination or a town for you, people!
I am 64 years old and a retired General Contractor, I dealt with renovation, restoration, remolding along with residential and commercial construction. In all the 40 years I had my company I met only one Architect who was worth a damn, the rest were blind as a gnats and not one creative bone in the whole bunch. These guys need to learn how to think out four 90 degree walls and stop over charging and arm and a leg for copied plans that don't work!
I'm by no means a GC but I do know to swing a hammer. Here's a story you may enjoy:
My brother in law is an architect. For mothers day he drew up some plans to build a new deck on my mothers house. As he and I were building it, toward the end, we ran into a problem. I actually don't remember exactly what anymore but pretty much the classic "reality won't let us follow these plans" situations. After he looked over his plans for a while he wryly said, "these plans don't seem to account for everything" at which point I told him told hold that thought there are some people I need to call that would appreciate hearing that from you.
On the other hand he drew up remodel plans for my brothers kitchen. When the contractors tried to convince my brother to not move the dishwasher he almost caved. Then our brother in law mentioned that the dishwasher would be in the way of the sink when opened which would be as lame as it gets.
I'll listen to an architect if he has reasonable things to say. Most of the critics of this new HQ don't offer me anything interesting to consider. Traffic is an area that should be looked at because it almost always gets worse wherever you are. If that involved things beyond the apple buses then the community should get involved as far as planning and money since they have to live with it.
On the other hand with this building apple has given me lots of things to consider. The "scary" and "troubling" comments from this architecture critic show to me apple is being bold about their re-imagining of a corperate campus. I expect bold moves from apple and lots of hand wringing from others. I think it's been like that for a long time.
There's a beautiful strip mall along North Wolfe... and the employees can play a game of chicken on the 280... maybe the people living along Homestead will invite the employees into their homes for lunch...
I'm sure the city of Cupertino would be happier having the old HP business campus lie empty while their biggest single employer built elsewhere....
/sarcasm
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
They could have saved money on the fitness center by having a track on the top of the main building.
It sounds good, but in reality it would be a huge security risk. At the facility where I work, no part of our building has more restricted physical access than our roof.
I'm sure the city of Cupertino would be happier having the old HP business campus lie empty while their biggest single employer built elsewhere....
/sarcasm
It sounds good, but in reality it would be a huge security risk. At the facility where I work, no part of our building has more restricted physical access than our roof.
I'm absolutely positive that you misread my intent.
At a certain point in any thread I feel that all one can do is joke.
This building is NOT an Apple product, don't get confused OK? This is asshat Sir Richard Foster, the most famous and insensitive architect in the world, pulling a fast one on Jobs and Apple.
See...90% of the criticism is based on the fact that the critics hate Foster. The guy could boil an egg for breakfast and these folks would bitch about the poor aesthetics of a plain white egg and what kind of message is he making with such a completely enclosed retro-cocoon inward looking shape?
Yep, and the fact that it's interesting because the building is Apple's most ambitious product yet, their biggest statement in 3D about who they are, or want to be.
It looks like they expect to be around for a while to be able to use it to work off the costs. It seems also that it will be a world-class headquarters building without really looking like one, except from the air. I don't see any grandiosity or arrogance or hubris, other than maybe just confidence about the future. It is very low-profile, really. It's just as much about the park as the office building/work space. They may even find a way to do without cubicles. Anti-alienating.
And the fact that we've had two or three critics pan it adds to the pleasure of this thread. It reminds me of how the New York film critics panned 2001 when it first came out. Those of us who did the proper thing and got high before seeing the movie, almost everybody that is, had a lot of fun with those poor left-brain critics for a long time after, even though it was sad to see them not get it, infuriating actually. Same thing here. I think this is a new kind of building that you have to grok the gestalt of, and if you don't, you find it threatening.
Oops, I mean 'scary' and 'troubling.' Or 'pedestrian.'
Comments
No one is arguing basic geometry, but it's a pointless argument to say that Apple design is inefficient because they didn't build a [I]square[/I design]. You get even more of an enclosing boundary from a triangle. On top of that, he ignored that you get even more of an enclosing boundary from a non-square rectangle than you from a square, which he should recognize as having 4 equal sides. But all that is beside the point because this is a building to be used by humans, not a 2 dimension drawing used in a primary school math class.
Exactly, so why are you arguing it? You're just confusing the issue when you argue with those who agree with you on the main ideas.
Do to the sheer size of this structure I would image there are at least 2 underground walkways going across the courtyard space.
Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter because even if there isn't a covered walkway across the courtyard you can still get from A to B out of the elements.
I'd think there will be prime office space that butts up against a glass wall looking into the courtyard. No matter what you do to curb it [professional] status will naturally unfold.
Supply and demand. Exterior corner offices are the prime offices in rectangular buildings and by geometric necessity a scarce resource. In a round building all offices that have windows are essentially equal, no power corners to fight over or use as ego badges. Sure there will be windowed office vs interior or cube dwellers, but since there will be so many of them, all just as good window-wise as the others, the ego-usefulness is much diminished.
I do tend to wonder why Apple's renderings show uncut grass... it makes the building look abandoned.
Cut grass requires lots of water, and energy to manicure it. Both things trend against the environmentally friendly aspect Apple is proposing.
There's a beautiful strip mall along North Wolfe... and the employees can play a game of chicken on the 280... maybe the people living along Homestead will invite the employees into their homes for lunch...
You got me looking at the map. The liquor store north of the gas station on Wolfe could be a good place to hang out. And, whattyaknow, there's a Starbucks! I'd love to see pictures of the laptop species in there.
Anyway, this mandate to make Apple part of the "urban environment" is such miserably misguided limp-wristed ecothink. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Gertrude Stein on Oakland comes to mind. "There is no there there." Apple is putting something there, but it's for them, not us. They are not building a tourist destination or a town for you, people!
I am 64 years old and a retired General Contractor, I dealt with renovation, restoration, remolding along with residential and commercial construction. In all the 40 years I had my company I met only one Architect who was worth a damn, the rest were blind as a gnats and not one creative bone in the whole bunch. These guys need to learn how to think out four 90 degree walls and stop over charging and arm and a leg for copied plans that don't work!
I'm by no means a GC but I do know to swing a hammer. Here's a story you may enjoy:
My brother in law is an architect. For mothers day he drew up some plans to build a new deck on my mothers house. As he and I were building it, toward the end, we ran into a problem. I actually don't remember exactly what anymore but pretty much the classic "reality won't let us follow these plans" situations. After he looked over his plans for a while he wryly said, "these plans don't seem to account for everything" at which point I told him told hold that thought there are some people I need to call that would appreciate hearing that from you.
On the other hand he drew up remodel plans for my brothers kitchen. When the contractors tried to convince my brother to not move the dishwasher he almost caved. Then our brother in law mentioned that the dishwasher would be in the way of the sink when opened which would be as lame as it gets.
I'll listen to an architect if he has reasonable things to say. Most of the critics of this new HQ don't offer me anything interesting to consider. Traffic is an area that should be looked at because it almost always gets worse wherever you are. If that involved things beyond the apple buses then the community should get involved as far as planning and money since they have to live with it.
On the other hand with this building apple has given me lots of things to consider. The "scary" and "troubling" comments from this architecture critic show to me apple is being bold about their re-imagining of a corperate campus. I expect bold moves from apple and lots of hand wringing from others. I think it's been like that for a long time.
Oh ya, welcome the forum
There's a beautiful strip mall along North Wolfe... and the employees can play a game of chicken on the 280... maybe the people living along Homestead will invite the employees into their homes for lunch...
I'm sure the city of Cupertino would be happier having the old HP business campus lie empty while their biggest single employer built elsewhere....
/sarcasm
They could have saved money on the fitness center by having a track on the top of the main building.
It sounds good, but in reality it would be a huge security risk. At the facility where I work, no part of our building has more restricted physical access than our roof.
I'm sure the city of Cupertino would be happier having the old HP business campus lie empty while their biggest single employer built elsewhere....
/sarcasm
It sounds good, but in reality it would be a huge security risk. At the facility where I work, no part of our building has more restricted physical access than our roof.
I'm absolutely positive that you misread my intent.
At a certain point in any thread I feel that all one can do is joke.
I'm absolutely positive that you misread my intent.
At a certain point in any thread I feel that all one can do is joke.
Doh! Of course you were!
/headslap
i hope the new building has secret underground floors, similar to "The Hive" in the first Resident Evil film.
HaHa Yeah!!!
See, now this is a legitimate critique. Good job.
Not really. You can walk across the central park area to get to the section you want if they put in enough doors in the donut hole.
This building is NOT an Apple product, don't get confused OK? This is asshat Sir Richard Foster, the most famous and insensitive architect in the world, pulling a fast one on Jobs and Apple.
See...90% of the criticism is based on the fact that the critics hate Foster. The guy could boil an egg for breakfast and these folks would bitch about the poor aesthetics of a plain white egg and what kind of message is he making with such a completely enclosed retro-cocoon inward looking shape?
BTW, your jealousy is showing.
It looks like they expect to be around for a while to be able to use it to work off the costs. It seems also that it will be a world-class headquarters building without really looking like one, except from the air. I don't see any grandiosity or arrogance or hubris, other than maybe just confidence about the future. It is very low-profile, really. It's just as much about the park as the office building/work space. They may even find a way to do without cubicles. Anti-alienating.
And the fact that we've had two or three critics pan it adds to the pleasure of this thread. It reminds me of how the New York film critics panned 2001 when it first came out. Those of us who did the proper thing and got high before seeing the movie, almost everybody that is, had a lot of fun with those poor left-brain critics for a long time after, even though it was sad to see them not get it, infuriating actually. Same thing here. I think this is a new kind of building that you have to grok the gestalt of, and if you don't, you find it threatening.
Oops, I mean 'scary' and 'troubling.' Or 'pedestrian.'