but there will always be critics, and i'm certainly not qualified to comment on architectural matters, but i seriously think apple and jobs won't lose any sleep worrying about what some critic has to say about the new headquarters building.
It looks like the McLaren Technology Centre in Woking, England. Same architect. Same design oriented client. They just turned the semi-circle into a full circle.
I believe there is an adjacent structure for additional parking next to I-295, but the primary parking will be under the spaceship itself.
Apple could also be gearing up their own production facilities. Now wouldn't that be a kick in the head for all of the nay-sayers. Apple products designed and produced in the good ole USA.
What the hell... this is beyond FUD..... If I was a betting man I think Jobs will pull it off and get worldwide acclaim when it's done.... who in the outside world would even care what an architectural critic opinion might be.... it's only his and if he doesn't like the design who gives a shit!!!
Basically Apple products are designed to get the job done efficiently and simply to get the job done. Although the building appears simple, for the people that work there it makes things more difficult.
At Uni we have a building that is very simple but you have no idea where in it you are because everywhere looks the same. I feel this is the issue this building will have.
Also for the future, if Apple declines its not like they can demolish one building to scale down, as its just one building. As well as this there is no logical way to extend - they are already talking about the campus they will build after this. It is not flexible.
I was initially excited about this building, but after looking in more detail, it is awful!
I am going to play a critic for a minute and I'm going to critique Paul Goldberger's style.
One first notices that he's bald. He really needs to lose whatever hair he has left on the left and right side above his ears. It is not a modern style at all and sporting something that makes somebody look old is reminiscent of an outdated sense of fashion and it is no longer appropriate in this current century. I find this most troubling, and not to mention, a little bit scary.
For perfect symmetry to be achieved, he needs to go with the clean look and shave everything off. That would produce much smoother, cleaner and purer lines and it would also be more harmonious with his surroundings and with nature. His current style is quite similar to what a 16 century monk would sport on their heads. It is simply put, not aesthetically pleasing and I find it to be a follicle disaster of enormous proportions.
There's something odd about placing the words parking and spaceship in the same sentence.
Well then let's rename cars to shuttlecrafts and iOS to LCARS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Apple could also be gearing up their own production facilities. Now wouldn't that be a kick in the head for all of the nay-sayers. Apple products designed and produced in the good ole USA.
JobsConn. An automated facilite run by Steve Jobs brain once it's uploaded to the iCloud in the technological singularity.
i am going to play a critic for a minute and i'm going to critique paul goldberger's style.
one first notices that he's bald. He really needs to lose whatever hair he has left on the left and right side above his ears. It is not a modern style at all and sporting something that makes somebody look old is reminiscent of an outdated sense of fashion and it is no longer appropriate in this current century. I find this most troubling, and not to mention, a little bit scary.
For perfect symmetry to be achieved, he needs to go with the clean look and shave everything off. That would produce much smoother, cleaner and purer lines and it would also be more harmonious with his surroundings and with nature. His current style is quite similar to what a 16 century monk would sport on their heads. It is simply put, not aesthetically pleasing and i find it to be a follicle disaster of enormous proportions.
I am going to play a critic for a minute and I'm going to critique Paul Goldberger's style.
One first notices that he's bald. He really needs to lose whatever hair he has left on the left and right side above his ears. It is not a modern style at all and sporting something that makes somebody look old is reminiscent of an outdated sense of fashion and it is no longer appropriate in this current century. I find this most troubling, and not to mention, a little bit scary.
For perfect symmetry to be achieved, he needs to go with the clean look and shave everything off. That would produce much smoother, cleaner and purer lines and it would also be more harmonious with his surroundings and with nature. His current style is quite similar to what a 16 century monk would sport on their heads. It is simply put, not aesthetically pleasing and I find it to be a follicle disaster of enormous proportions.
There's a critic for everything out there. This architect really lacks that vision that Steve has. The building design is timeless, like Apple products. Even in 20, 30 years it will fit in.
I see this crazy pattern in modern architecture, where architects are so full of themselves that they try to put a forest on top of a building and call it a masterpiece. Yes this kind of "crazy" thinking fits in with "green" style of modern days, but in 500, 1,000 years people only gonna look back and think how stupid humanity was with trees on top of buildings. It's just a gimmick with no real use, vision or functionality to urban landscape. This is just an example.
Idiots like him remind me of those same critics that panned the design of the Transamerica Building (The "pyramid") in San Francisco when they initially approved the design of it. My oh my the ruckus that it created back in the day.
Now, that same building panned by the critics is what makes San Francisco such a unique skyline.
The same thing that happened to those critics back then will happen to Mr. Goldberger after this building is finished. He will join the rest of the pack into the back corner of a dark room and hope no one approaches to call him out.
Unique, modern buildings always attract a lot of criticism.
I agree. However, this building is not unique and it's certainly not modern. At least not in the sense I assume you meant "modern" (i.e. current). Not by a LONG shot. It's aesthetic is more closely aligned with the failed utopian visions of the early modernists like Le Corbusier from 100 year ago.
There's a critic for everything out there. This architect really lacks that vision that Steve has.
OMFG. Seriously? Look, Steve Jobs has created some amazing products but for pete's sake... he's not an architect. Nor should he try to be one. He should stick with what he knows. This building is a disaster.
Goldbeger has even more credentials than Hawthorne.
I think you'd have to have read every article that he's written since the early 80s to understand his thinking on architecture.
Regardless, I still believe that every article should be a stand alone piece that you can pick up and read and know the direction the critic envisions. Hell, a smart guy like Goldberger should be able to knock out some of the fluff in this piece and add a paragraph or two explaining what he'd do in Cupertino.
Defensive much? Often critics raise valid and interesting points. Architecture is a broad subject and I see nothing worn with critics voicing their opinion here. Ambitious projects like this are often controversial. And I don't see what this has to do with it being America, and whether it is Apple's money or not. In fact, I really don't know why you are so upset about this.
I am not sure what he is upset about either. I would like to know if you believe this critic raised valid concerns. If he did, what were they? I read it twice now and can't find any.
I can cite two local examples of how he's misguided. Mostly he's looking at it from the air.
The old Union Carbide campus (now Dow) in western CT is a good example. From the air you would cringe. A bionic caterpillar. Driving into it, parking below it, and being inside of it, you emerge into an office that looks out on the surrounding landscape and has a very nice feel. The building is virtually invisible to the outside world, being encompassed by trees. The Apple campus does this too.
The CIGNA campus also here in central CT is similar. From the air? A domino. Inside, lots of glass in a simple form. From the inside, the landscape takes over and softens everything. You can drive right down the nearby roads and barely notice one of the largest buildings around. The Apple campus will do this too.
Is the Apple proposal "futuristic"? Yep. So was Capitol Records, the WTC and the Transamerica building and a lot of others. All now considered "modern classics". Hardly a fault.
You build buildings that people have to work in, and make them impressive to look at as a whole. if the experience of those two examples are valid, it'll be a whole different thing to be inside the building than to be in the air looking down.
This is where Gehry got snagged - the Stata Center is pure genius in external form, but hell on actual occupants.
As for his main comment:
"Flexibility is a hallmark of the iPad, and it counts in architecture, too, but how much flexibility is there in a vast office governed entirely by geometry?"
The innards look very plain and easily reconfigurable. Large open spaces with out specificity. Steve is a old colleague of Alan Kay, who says things like "make the technology really powerful, and then make it disappear" (or something like that. It was late, we were busy) and this building seems to do so. Steve also has experience with the new Pixar campus, which needs lots of flexibility and a certain measure of specificity due to the nature of making movies. Pixar will be making movies for the foreseeable future. Ten years ago today, the iPod was a bubbling rumor. Who knows what Apple will be making during the lifetime of this building? Flexibility is key, and open generic spaces are a plus. And don't knock the Pentagon - the military has gotten 68 years out of it and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
All forms of design, including architecture, has "problem-solving" at its heart.
Research the list of building codes, work/life considerations, budgetary constraints, manufacturing challenges, etc. -- all of those integral factors and many more -- and this may appear to be an elegant solution.
Dig no deeper than the surface and your critique seems.. thin.
Comments
those who can... Do
those who can't... Teach
those who can do neither... Become critics
but there will always be critics, and i'm certainly not qualified to comment on architectural matters, but i seriously think apple and jobs won't lose any sleep worrying about what some critic has to say about the new headquarters building.
nice !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe there is an adjacent structure for additional parking next to I-295, but the primary parking will be under the spaceship itself.
Apple could also be gearing up their own production facilities. Now wouldn't that be a kick in the head for all of the nay-sayers. Apple products designed and produced in the good ole USA.
I don't like this new "Circle-style" campus plan either...
Basically Apple products are designed to get the job done efficiently and simply to get the job done. Although the building appears simple, for the people that work there it makes things more difficult.
At Uni we have a building that is very simple but you have no idea where in it you are because everywhere looks the same. I feel this is the issue this building will have.
Also for the future, if Apple declines its not like they can demolish one building to scale down, as its just one building. As well as this there is no logical way to extend - they are already talking about the campus they will build after this. It is not flexible.
I was initially excited about this building, but after looking in more detail, it is awful!
One first notices that he's bald. He really needs to lose whatever hair he has left on the left and right side above his ears. It is not a modern style at all and sporting something that makes somebody look old is reminiscent of an outdated sense of fashion and it is no longer appropriate in this current century. I find this most troubling, and not to mention, a little bit scary.
For perfect symmetry to be achieved, he needs to go with the clean look and shave everything off. That would produce much smoother, cleaner and purer lines and it would also be more harmonious with his surroundings and with nature. His current style is quite similar to what a 16 century monk would sport on their heads. It is simply put, not aesthetically pleasing and I find it to be a follicle disaster of enormous proportions.
There's something odd about placing the words parking and spaceship in the same sentence.
Well then let's rename cars to shuttlecrafts and iOS to LCARS.
Apple could also be gearing up their own production facilities. Now wouldn't that be a kick in the head for all of the nay-sayers. Apple products designed and produced in the good ole USA.
JobsConn. An automated facilite run by Steve Jobs brain once it's uploaded to the iCloud in the technological singularity.
i am going to play a critic for a minute and i'm going to critique paul goldberger's style.
one first notices that he's bald. He really needs to lose whatever hair he has left on the left and right side above his ears. It is not a modern style at all and sporting something that makes somebody look old is reminiscent of an outdated sense of fashion and it is no longer appropriate in this current century. I find this most troubling, and not to mention, a little bit scary.
For perfect symmetry to be achieved, he needs to go with the clean look and shave everything off. That would produce much smoother, cleaner and purer lines and it would also be more harmonious with his surroundings and with nature. His current style is quite similar to what a 16 century monk would sport on their heads. It is simply put, not aesthetically pleasing and i find it to be a follicle disaster of enormous proportions.
rofl :d
I am going to play a critic for a minute and I'm going to critique Paul Goldberger's style.
One first notices that he's bald. He really needs to lose whatever hair he has left on the left and right side above his ears. It is not a modern style at all and sporting something that makes somebody look old is reminiscent of an outdated sense of fashion and it is no longer appropriate in this current century. I find this most troubling, and not to mention, a little bit scary.
For perfect symmetry to be achieved, he needs to go with the clean look and shave everything off. That would produce much smoother, cleaner and purer lines and it would also be more harmonious with his surroundings and with nature. His current style is quite similar to what a 16 century monk would sport on their heads. It is simply put, not aesthetically pleasing and I find it to be a follicle disaster of enormous proportions.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I see this crazy pattern in modern architecture, where architects are so full of themselves that they try to put a forest on top of a building and call it a masterpiece. Yes this kind of "crazy" thinking fits in with "green" style of modern days, but in 500, 1,000 years people only gonna look back and think how stupid humanity was with trees on top of buildings. It's just a gimmick with no real use, vision or functionality to urban landscape. This is just an example.
Now, that same building panned by the critics is what makes San Francisco such a unique skyline.
The same thing that happened to those critics back then will happen to Mr. Goldberger after this building is finished. He will join the rest of the pack into the back corner of a dark room and hope no one approaches to call him out.
Unique, modern buildings always attract a lot of criticism.
I agree. However, this building is not unique and it's certainly not modern. At least not in the sense I assume you meant "modern" (i.e. current). Not by a LONG shot. It's aesthetic is more closely aligned with the failed utopian visions of the early modernists like Le Corbusier from 100 year ago.
There's a critic for everything out there. This architect really lacks that vision that Steve has.
OMFG. Seriously? Look, Steve Jobs has created some amazing products but for pete's sake... he's not an architect. Nor should he try to be one. He should stick with what he knows. This building is a disaster.
I think you'd have to have read every article that he's written since the early 80s to understand his thinking on architecture.
Regardless, I still believe that every article should be a stand alone piece that you can pick up and read and know the direction the critic envisions. Hell, a smart guy like Goldberger should be able to knock out some of the fluff in this piece and add a paragraph or two explaining what he'd do in Cupertino.
Defensive much? Often critics raise valid and interesting points. Architecture is a broad subject and I see nothing worn with critics voicing their opinion here. Ambitious projects like this are often controversial. And I don't see what this has to do with it being America, and whether it is Apple's money or not. In fact, I really don't know why you are so upset about this.
I am not sure what he is upset about either. I would like to know if you believe this critic raised valid concerns. If he did, what were they? I read it twice now and can't find any.
The old Union Carbide campus (now Dow) in western CT is a good example. From the air you would cringe. A bionic caterpillar. Driving into it, parking below it, and being inside of it, you emerge into an office that looks out on the surrounding landscape and has a very nice feel. The building is virtually invisible to the outside world, being encompassed by trees. The Apple campus does this too.
The CIGNA campus also here in central CT is similar. From the air? A domino. Inside, lots of glass in a simple form. From the inside, the landscape takes over and softens everything. You can drive right down the nearby roads and barely notice one of the largest buildings around. The Apple campus will do this too.
Is the Apple proposal "futuristic"? Yep. So was Capitol Records, the WTC and the Transamerica building and a lot of others. All now considered "modern classics". Hardly a fault.
You build buildings that people have to work in, and make them impressive to look at as a whole. if the experience of those two examples are valid, it'll be a whole different thing to be inside the building than to be in the air looking down.
This is where Gehry got snagged - the Stata Center is pure genius in external form, but hell on actual occupants.
As for his main comment:
"Flexibility is a hallmark of the iPad, and it counts in architecture, too, but how much flexibility is there in a vast office governed entirely by geometry?"
The innards look very plain and easily reconfigurable. Large open spaces with out specificity. Steve is a old colleague of Alan Kay, who says things like "make the technology really powerful, and then make it disappear" (or something like that. It was late, we were busy) and this building seems to do so. Steve also has experience with the new Pixar campus, which needs lots of flexibility and a certain measure of specificity due to the nature of making movies. Pixar will be making movies for the foreseeable future. Ten years ago today, the iPod was a bubbling rumor. Who knows what Apple will be making during the lifetime of this building? Flexibility is key, and open generic spaces are a plus. And don't knock the Pentagon - the military has gotten 68 years out of it and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Research the list of building codes, work/life considerations, budgetary constraints, manufacturing challenges, etc. -- all of those integral factors and many more -- and this may appear to be an elegant solution.
Dig no deeper than the surface and your critique seems.. thin.