How big is the "adjacent structure" to park the cars for 13,000 employees?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Parking is going to be underground, I believe.
Nope - *massively* big parking structure stretching along I-280. I'm really disappointed in Apple both for including this gargantuan structure in the campus (when it runs so counter to the purported goal of having open space and a 21st century campus), as well as in the fact that none of the published drawings show this behemoth.
The cool thing about architecture is that no matter what kind of architectural jargon these critics use, nothing can circumvent my opinion.
I think the building looks awesome. It's unfortunate that some out-of-work armchair critic didn't get commissioned to build an iconic building. Thus, let's lambast it.
Non-architect, critic, realizes he can gain notoriety/infamy from trolling Apple, just like analysts in tech can.
He's known for banging the preservation stump, which makes critique of modern design coming from him as legitimate as critique of foreign policy coming from me. You can count on the periodic "get off my lawn" tripe from critics like Goldberger.
And why should anyone care what this idiot "Architecture Critic" has to say about anything?? You guys on this site need to do a reality check. People like this bring NOTHING to the party. What has he created? What has he built from scratch? Who has he employees?
NOTHING, NOTHING and NOBODY!
Oh goddess, here we go again.
What he "brings to the party" is years (in fact, in his case decades) of experience in exploring, examining, advising and critiquing architecture. I guess you believe that expert knowledge is pointless, that a janitor is as good a person to advise on a building's form and function as a professionally trained architect with decades of experience?
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.
+1
Love his products; eagerly awaiting the iPhone 5. But sorry, this 'spaceship', it's divorce from the local surroundings, its lack of public transit access, and its behemoth parking structure are all *not* perfect gifts from on high that we should worship. They're one view of what could be done with the site, and there are a lot of legitimate ways it could be improved.
After all, we obviously don't have the deep background and experience in architecture your statements claim for you.
That's painfully clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Since all utopian visions are essentially doomed to failure, your phrase "failed utopian visions" is a res ipsa loquitur, [...]
And you're clearly not a lawyer either. I think you mean to allege that the phrase is redundant. Res ipsa involves something not readily known or witnessed, but which nevertheless has to have happened or been the case based on current conditions.
What can I say, that's how I roll. Do you not have any sense of humor? Even though my critique was written mostly in jest, I do feel that my advice was actually good advice and he should lose the rest of his hair, speaking purely from an artistic point of view.
when frank lloyd wright put up the guggenheim museum on fifth ave in nyc, people were jumping out of their skin.
fifth ave is a very very upscale quiet type area. when the guggenheim was built some people wanted it torn down. steve job's design is pedestrian if you wanted to make a one on one comparison.
now, 30-40 years later (estimate), the guggenheim fits in like it was destiny. nobody complains and the same series of events will propel steve job's building to success.
Personally? The 'spaceship' certainly looks impressive on paper. It also looks ominous and 'blank faced', almost threatening, like a futuristic closed fortress. It doesn't appear to have any nooks and crannies outdoors. Nooks and crannies can be created through landscaping. Maybe an Apple Village would have been a better solution in the long term... or just nicer for the people working there. I don't know. But the Spaceship is very Jobsian, so it makes sense. But often great minds need tempering through imposed limitations to be truly great. Once they rise above that and can freely unleash their 'vision' unhindered, it becomes bigger, grander, more impressive, but less great. So, I don't know. I am seduced by it at the moment on a purely visual level.
Very well said. If (when) it's built, it will undoubtedly be impressive, hailed as an achievement, and be a landmark for decades to come. And rightfully so, just as the Pentagon is impressive and a major landmark.
But that doesn't mean that the new HQ is inherently, axiomatically *the* best iteration of what could have been done there. And it's entirely possible that once it's built, some people will love it, and some people will see limitations or deficiencies in the plan and/or in using the space on a day-to-day basis.
The design is not really my taste but you can't see it from my house, so it is fine with me.
Looks like it would be easy to get lost inside without navigational aids. I would expect they will have high speed horizontal transportation implementations of some sort.
Clearly this Green Site is making the critics green with envy. I'd love to work in an office surrounded by natural beauty/parkland. It'd be even better with real cows grazing!
Nope - *massively* big parking structure stretching along I-280. I'm really disappointed in Apple both for including this gargantuan structure in the campus (when it runs so counter to the purported goal of having open space and a 21st century campus), as well as in the fact that none of the published drawings show this behemoth.
I've seen plenty of drawings that show the parking structure. Only two levels of the four will be visible from the campus and structure along the 280 side will be almost invisible, sitting in a depression next to the 280 and hidden by trees.
head on over to this page and get the site drawings offered at the bottom of the page:
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 didn't really look at his criticisms in detail but my point is that any knowledgable critic should be allowed to voice his concerns. Architecture is centred around aesthetics and functionality in a geographical / social context. That leaves a lot of room for deep debate and differing views.
Personally? The 'spaceship' certainly looks impressive on paper. It also looks ominous and 'blank faced', almost threatening, like a futuristic closed fortress. It doesn't appear to have any nooks and crannies outdoors. Nooks and crannies can be created through landscaping. Maybe an Apple Village would have been a better solution in the long term... or just nicer for the people working there. I don't know. But the Spaceship is very Jobsian, so it makes sense. But often great minds need tempering through imposed limitations to be truly great. Once they rise above that and can freely unleash their 'vision' unhindered, it becomes bigger, grander, more impressive, but less great. So, I don't know. I am seduced by it at the moment on a purely visual level.
I agree in general. My problem is that there is nothing in this piece that can be reasonably defined as criticism, not in the professional or journalistic sense.
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'm fairly certain that Steve's input to the architectural design of the building was limited to drawing two concentric circles on a piece of paper and saying, "Here. Build me this." No, Steve is not an architect?nor was he trying to be. What he is is a visionary genius. He knows how to motivate and drive the best people to do their best work?this includes architects.
Comments
How big is the "adjacent structure" to park the cars for 13,000 employees?
Parking is going to be underground, I believe.
Nope - *massively* big parking structure stretching along I-280. I'm really disappointed in Apple both for including this gargantuan structure in the campus (when it runs so counter to the purported goal of having open space and a 21st century campus), as well as in the fact that none of the published drawings show this behemoth.
I think the building looks awesome. It's unfortunate that some out-of-work armchair critic didn't get commissioned to build an iconic building. Thus, let's lambast it.
He's known for banging the preservation stump, which makes critique of modern design coming from him as legitimate as critique of foreign policy coming from me. You can count on the periodic "get off my lawn" tripe from critics like Goldberger.
I'd never seen that before. It looks pretty awful and I don't care who made it or designed it. It looks like the aftermath of an earthquake.
Exactly my point...
It doesn't matter who likes it or not. If they want to build it, they will.
And why should anyone care what this idiot "Architecture Critic" has to say about anything?? You guys on this site need to do a reality check. People like this bring NOTHING to the party. What has he created? What has he built from scratch? Who has he employees?
NOTHING, NOTHING and NOBODY!
Oh goddess, here we go again.
What he "brings to the party" is years (in fact, in his case decades) of experience in exploring, examining, advising and critiquing architecture. I guess you believe that expert knowledge is pointless, that a janitor is as good a person to advise on a building's form and function as a professionally trained architect with decades of experience?
I am going to play a critic for a minute and I'm going to critique Paul Goldberger's style.
how infantile
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.
+1
Love his products; eagerly awaiting the iPhone 5. But sorry, this 'spaceship', it's divorce from the local surroundings, its lack of public transit access, and its behemoth parking structure are all *not* perfect gifts from on high that we should worship. They're one view of what could be done with the site, and there are a lot of legitimate ways it could be improved.
how infantile
One could say the same about the vacuous critique that started this.......
Those who can... do
Those who can't... teach
Those who can do neither... become critics
I propose a cleaner version.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who don't know anything at all about the topic become analysts.
After all, we obviously don't have the deep background and experience in architecture your statements claim for you.
That's painfully clear.
Since all utopian visions are essentially doomed to failure, your phrase "failed utopian visions" is a res ipsa loquitur, [...]
And you're clearly not a lawyer either. I think you mean to allege that the phrase is redundant. Res ipsa involves something not readily known or witnessed, but which nevertheless has to have happened or been the case based on current conditions.
how infantile
What can I say, that's how I roll. Do you not have any sense of humor? Even though my critique was written mostly in jest, I do feel that my advice was actually good advice and he should lose the rest of his hair, speaking purely from an artistic point of view.
fifth ave is a very very upscale quiet type area. when the guggenheim was built some people wanted it torn down. steve job's design is pedestrian if you wanted to make a one on one comparison.
now, 30-40 years later (estimate), the guggenheim fits in like it was destiny. nobody complains and the same series of events will propel steve job's building to success.
Personally? The 'spaceship' certainly looks impressive on paper. It also looks ominous and 'blank faced', almost threatening, like a futuristic closed fortress. It doesn't appear to have any nooks and crannies outdoors. Nooks and crannies can be created through landscaping. Maybe an Apple Village would have been a better solution in the long term... or just nicer for the people working there. I don't know. But the Spaceship is very Jobsian, so it makes sense. But often great minds need tempering through imposed limitations to be truly great. Once they rise above that and can freely unleash their 'vision' unhindered, it becomes bigger, grander, more impressive, but less great. So, I don't know. I am seduced by it at the moment on a purely visual level.
Very well said. If (when) it's built, it will undoubtedly be impressive, hailed as an achievement, and be a landmark for decades to come. And rightfully so, just as the Pentagon is impressive and a major landmark.
But that doesn't mean that the new HQ is inherently, axiomatically *the* best iteration of what could have been done there. And it's entirely possible that once it's built, some people will love it, and some people will see limitations or deficiencies in the plan and/or in using the space on a day-to-day basis.
Looks like it would be easy to get lost inside without navigational aids. I would expect they will have high speed horizontal transportation implementations of some sort.
Nope - *massively* big parking structure stretching along I-280. I'm really disappointed in Apple both for including this gargantuan structure in the campus (when it runs so counter to the purported goal of having open space and a 21st century campus), as well as in the fact that none of the published drawings show this behemoth.
I've seen plenty of drawings that show the parking structure. Only two levels of the four will be visible from the campus and structure along the 280 side will be almost invisible, sitting in a depression next to the 280 and hidden by trees.
head on over to this page and get the site drawings offered at the bottom of the page:
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1107
The link to "Floor Plans" has drawings of the garage.
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.
AHAHAHA!!! WIN!
I didn't really look at his criticisms in detail but my point is that any knowledgable critic should be allowed to voice his concerns. Architecture is centred around aesthetics and functionality in a geographical / social context. That leaves a lot of room for deep debate and differing views.
Personally? The 'spaceship' certainly looks impressive on paper. It also looks ominous and 'blank faced', almost threatening, like a futuristic closed fortress. It doesn't appear to have any nooks and crannies outdoors. Nooks and crannies can be created through landscaping. Maybe an Apple Village would have been a better solution in the long term... or just nicer for the people working there. I don't know. But the Spaceship is very Jobsian, so it makes sense. But often great minds need tempering through imposed limitations to be truly great. Once they rise above that and can freely unleash their 'vision' unhindered, it becomes bigger, grander, more impressive, but less great. So, I don't know. I am seduced by it at the moment on a purely visual level.
I agree in general. My problem is that there is nothing in this piece that can be reasonably defined as criticism, not in the professional or journalistic sense.
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'm fairly certain that Steve's input to the architectural design of the building was limited to drawing two concentric circles on a piece of paper and saying, "Here. Build me this." No, Steve is not an architect?nor was he trying to be. What he is is a visionary genius. He knows how to motivate and drive the best people to do their best work?this includes architects.