Critics for the New York Times are educated and not idiots. How much to you know about architecture? The constitution as far as I know says nothing about buildings shaped like donuts. All towns, cities, counties have rules regarding zoning, building sizes, environmental impact, and cultural impact. I am not saying the Apple donut is the Mc Mansion of office buildings but this critic as raised some very good points one is the financial clout the company has and its ability to get it's way.
... and I could give you a litany of examples where art/architecture critics have been wrong in the past.
It's one person's opinion. That's all. Whether it's based on endless years of research and education seems to be irrelevant (refer to my first paragraph).
As I've said before... get better mass transit in Cupertino... cut the vehicles going to the campus by 2500 over the next 5 years and another 2000 over the next 5 years after that... and most of the concerns will disappear.
The EIR on the project doesn't come out until Spring next year... I can hardly wait to see what they have to say. That should be worth a few hundred clicks for AI.
[QUOTE=Zaphodsplanet;1950907]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!
This is still America. How many of you have bothered picking up a copy of our constitution and read it? If you haven't please do so. If Apple decides it wants to build a freaking space ship and put the first store on Mars.... IT'S THEIR MONEY.... they can do whatever in the heck they want to with it. It's not the shareholders.... it's the company's. The CEO, board and shareholders all have input... but not some loser moron of an "Architecture Critic"..... What a freaking joke.[/QUOTE
Only way these clowns feel relevant is to find fault with everything .wonder what he thinks of the New MLK monument colossus in Washington DC ? MADE IN CHINA by the way.
The last paragraph of a critique by Witold Rybczynski [Slate] of Robert Bruegmann's book, Sprawl:
What this iconoclastic little book demonstrates is that sprawl is not the anomalous result of American zoning laws, or mortgage interest tax deduction, or cheap gas, or subsidized highway construction, or cultural antipathy toward cities. Nor is it an aberration. Bruegmann shows that asking whether sprawl is "good" or "bad" is the wrong question. Sprawl is and always has been inherent to urbanization. It is driven less by the regulations of legislators, the actions of developers, and the theories of city planners, than by the decisions of millions of individuals?Adam Smith's "invisible hand." This makes altering it very complicated, indeed. There are scores of books offering "solutions" to sprawl. Their authors would do well to read this book. To find solutions?or, rather, better ways to manage sprawl, which is not the same thing?it helps to get the problem right.
Is that the same critic that said something along the line of the Eiffle Tower ruined the Paris skyline and was an eyesore that should be torn down?
There is a difference between a building that affects the skyline and one that is low and hidden by the natural setting. Really, how many people are going to be able to see it from their home or office? Relatively few I would imagine, at least compared to a skyscraper.
Oh blargh. So, I went to the trouble of actually reading his commentary, and in the portion where he actually talks about the building, he uses words, but he doesn't really say anything.
Quote:
but who wants to work in a gigantic donut?
The only time you'll see the "donut" is if you're flying more than 1,000 feet overhead. If you're working inside the building, or strolling around it, you'll see endlessly curving walls of glass.
Quote:
But buildings aren?t spaceships, any more than they are iPhones.
Wow, sir. You are very very smart.
Quote:
So why is Foster?s design troubling, maybe even a bit scary?
Never really got around to answering your own rhetorical question. Of course, words like "troubling" and "scary" with regard to architectural design will certainly generate a lot of hits, and will help in Google searches as well. Mission accomplished!
Quote:
A building is also a tool, but of a very different sort. In architecture, scale?the size of various parts of a building in proportion to one another and to the size of human beings?counts for a lot. With this building, there seems to be very little sense of any connection to human size.
This comment suggests to me that you never bothered to look at any of the renderings, floor plans, or descriptions that I just downloaded from Cupertino's planning website.
Quote:
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?
Again, dude. Look at the drawings. Looks to me like there's a lot of room for flexibility within the "donut". As to the "governed entirely by geometry" comment, every amazing architectural structure begins as a few simple strokes of a pen or pencil on paper. Visionary architects have a tendency to begin with simple geometric designs, and then find ways to make them work in the real world.
Quote:
For all of Foster?s sleekness, this Apple building seems more like a twenty-first-century version of the Pentagon.
Aw, man. It's like you're not even trying.
Good critics understand that real criticism is about deconstructing something and sussing out its workings and then commenting on that?pointing out the strengths and weaknesses. Bad critics mistake "criticism" for "criticizing", i.e. they think their job is simply to say "that's crap," and then try to come up with stuff to back up their assertion.
I'm not trying to suggest that the Apple Spaceship is The Best Thing Ever To Be Built?. I'm sure there are legitimate issues and questions to be raised. Mr. What's-His-Name didn't raise them.
... and I could give you a litany of examples where art/architecture critics have been wrong in the past.
It's one person's opinion. That's all. Whether it's based on endless years of research and education seems to be irrelevant (refer to my first paragraph).
As I've said before... get better mass transit in Cupertino... cut the vehicles going to the campus by 2500 over the next 5 years and another 2000 over the next 5 years after that... and most of the concerns will disappear.
The EIR on the project doesn't come out until Spring next year... I can hardly wait to see what they have to say. That should be worth a few hundred clicks for AI.
If I recall correctly, Steve said that Apple has a fleet of 20 buses running biodiesel. Assuming those buses can hold up to 50 people, that's potentially 1,000 cars eliminated. I think Apple is also giving incentives to employees who bicycle to work, and to employees who carpool.
The main concern seems to be with cars... always cars... with no mention about how you get the employees to the campus. I think these critics want us to go back to the old company town model... build the office and then place company controlled multi story housing all around with company controlled shops on the main floors.
I just wish they'd give examples instead of just criticism. Criticism without solutions is just idiotic to me.
Move it to China with the rest of the operation....
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!
This is still America. How many of you have bothered picking up a copy of our constitution and read it? If you haven't please do so. If Apple decides it wants to build a freaking space ship and put the first store on Mars.... IT'S THEIR MONEY.... they can do whatever in the heck they want to with it. It's not the shareholders.... it's the company's. The CEO, board and shareholders all have input... but not some loser moron of an "Architecture Critic"..... What a freaking joke.
That's right - this is America. And anyone has a right to criticize Apple's design plans, in any forum they want. Before you give us a civics lesson, maybe you could brush up on the concept of Freedom of Speech.
People, people, people, you're ready to kill the guy because he doesn't like Apple's design. Get a grip on yourselves.
If I recall correctly, Steve said that Apple has a fleet of 20 buses running biodiesel. Assuming those buses can hold up to 50 people, that's potentially 1,000 cars eliminated. I think Apple is also giving incentives to employees who bicycle to work, and to employees who carpool.
I should have mentioned that I was talking about the parking spaces for over 4000 vehicles in the parking structure along the 280. My reduction numbers would have reduced the need to zero for that structure in 10 years.
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.
It would be a lot more expensive for Apple to put it underground. And besides - its not like Apple owes a nice view to the people on the freeway. The tall parking lot will shield Apple's property from the noise and pollution.
Where do these people come from? There's always a critic. My question is, why does he care? He doesn't have to work there. Why meddle in other people's business? He either has nothing better to do, or he's attention deprived.
Regardless, I think the building design is cool, and I'd love to visit it some day. Apple has built hundreds of buildings around the world now, and every single one of them are pretty amazing. Why would anyone think this new campus wouldn't be spectacular?
And there's nothing wrong with round. And there's nothing wrong with the Pentagon either - some people keep comparing it like there's something wrong with it.
There is a difference between a building that affects the skyline and one that is low and hidden by the natural setting. Really, how many people are going to be able to see it from their home or office? Relatively few I would imagine, at least compared to a skyscraper.
Tens of thousands of people will drive past it every day, and they won't even see it because it will be hidden by the parking garage.
What I don't understand about the design is the flow - how does one efficiently move through a large circular building?
Certainly, the organization of people and departments will be carefully planned to minimize the need to take a sweeping walk around the circumference, and knowing Apple, there may be some pioneering horizontal conveyors to move people quickly, but the design seems to present challenges from this perspective.
Otherwise, I kind of like the futuristic feel, and the large amount of glass and openings in and around the exterior spaces will likely make it feel like an incredibly open environment, as opposed to something confining like many offices do.
What I don't understand about the design is the flow - how does one efficiently move through a large circular building?
Certainly, the organization of people and departments will be carefully planned to minimize the need to take a sweeping walk around the circumference, and knowing Apple, there may be some pioneering horizontal conveyors to move people quickly, but the design seems to present challenges from this perspective.
Otherwise, I kind of like the futuristic feel, and the large amount of glass and openings in and around the exterior spaces will likely make it feel like an incredibly open environment, as opposed to something confining like many offices do.
Look at the size of this proposed building compared to the entirty of the other campus with it's four main structures. It might be large enough that you won't notice the curve.
He then went on to call the design "troubling" and "maybe even a bit scary" because he feels the giant circular shape lacks the functionality of devices like the iPhone, iPad or MacBook lineup. He said that architecture should take into account scale, while he feels Apple's new campus does not connect to human size.
Really??? I have only one thing to say about this comment....
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower
Critics for the New York Times are educated and not idiots. How much to you know about architecture? The constitution as far as I know says nothing about buildings shaped like donuts. All towns, cities, counties have rules regarding zoning, building sizes, environmental impact, and cultural impact. I am not saying the Apple donut is the Mc Mansion of office buildings but this critic as raised some very good points one is the financial clout the company has and its ability to get it's way.
... and I could give you a litany of examples where art/architecture critics have been wrong in the past.
It's one person's opinion. That's all. Whether it's based on endless years of research and education seems to be irrelevant (refer to my first paragraph).
As I've said before... get better mass transit in Cupertino... cut the vehicles going to the campus by 2500 over the next 5 years and another 2000 over the next 5 years after that... and most of the concerns will disappear.
The EIR on the project doesn't come out until Spring next year... I can hardly wait to see what they have to say. That should be worth a few hundred clicks for AI.
NOTHING, NOTHING and NOBODY!
This is still America. How many of you have bothered picking up a copy of our constitution and read it? If you haven't please do so. If Apple decides it wants to build a freaking space ship and put the first store on Mars.... IT'S THEIR MONEY.... they can do whatever in the heck they want to with it. It's not the shareholders.... it's the company's. The CEO, board and shareholders all have input... but not some loser moron of an "Architecture Critic"..... What a freaking joke.[/QUOTE
Only way these clowns feel relevant is to find fault with everything .wonder what he thinks of the New MLK monument colossus in Washington DC ? MADE IN CHINA by the way.
What this iconoclastic little book demonstrates is that sprawl is not the anomalous result of American zoning laws, or mortgage interest tax deduction, or cheap gas, or subsidized highway construction, or cultural antipathy toward cities. Nor is it an aberration. Bruegmann shows that asking whether sprawl is "good" or "bad" is the wrong question. Sprawl is and always has been inherent to urbanization. It is driven less by the regulations of legislators, the actions of developers, and the theories of city planners, than by the decisions of millions of individuals?Adam Smith's "invisible hand." This makes altering it very complicated, indeed. There are scores of books offering "solutions" to sprawl. Their authors would do well to read this book. To find solutions?or, rather, better ways to manage sprawl, which is not the same thing?it helps to get the problem right.
http://www.slate.com/id/2129636/
Is that the same critic that said something along the line of the Eiffle Tower ruined the Paris skyline and was an eyesore that should be torn down?
There is a difference between a building that affects the skyline and one that is low and hidden by the natural setting. Really, how many people are going to be able to see it from their home or office? Relatively few I would imagine, at least compared to a skyscraper.
but who wants to work in a gigantic donut?
The only time you'll see the "donut" is if you're flying more than 1,000 feet overhead. If you're working inside the building, or strolling around it, you'll see endlessly curving walls of glass.
But buildings aren?t spaceships, any more than they are iPhones.
Wow, sir. You are very very smart.
So why is Foster?s design troubling, maybe even a bit scary?
Never really got around to answering your own rhetorical question. Of course, words like "troubling" and "scary" with regard to architectural design will certainly generate a lot of hits, and will help in Google searches as well. Mission accomplished!
A building is also a tool, but of a very different sort. In architecture, scale?the size of various parts of a building in proportion to one another and to the size of human beings?counts for a lot. With this building, there seems to be very little sense of any connection to human size.
This comment suggests to me that you never bothered to look at any of the renderings, floor plans, or descriptions that I just downloaded from Cupertino's planning website.
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?
Again, dude. Look at the drawings. Looks to me like there's a lot of room for flexibility within the "donut". As to the "governed entirely by geometry" comment, every amazing architectural structure begins as a few simple strokes of a pen or pencil on paper. Visionary architects have a tendency to begin with simple geometric designs, and then find ways to make them work in the real world.
For all of Foster?s sleekness, this Apple building seems more like a twenty-first-century version of the Pentagon.
Aw, man. It's like you're not even trying.
Good critics understand that real criticism is about deconstructing something and sussing out its workings and then commenting on that?pointing out the strengths and weaknesses. Bad critics mistake "criticism" for "criticizing", i.e. they think their job is simply to say "that's crap," and then try to come up with stuff to back up their assertion.
I'm not trying to suggest that the Apple Spaceship is The Best Thing Ever To Be Built?. I'm sure there are legitimate issues and questions to be raised. Mr. What's-His-Name didn't raise them.
... and I could give you a litany of examples where art/architecture critics have been wrong in the past.
It's one person's opinion. That's all. Whether it's based on endless years of research and education seems to be irrelevant (refer to my first paragraph).
As I've said before... get better mass transit in Cupertino... cut the vehicles going to the campus by 2500 over the next 5 years and another 2000 over the next 5 years after that... and most of the concerns will disappear.
The EIR on the project doesn't come out until Spring next year... I can hardly wait to see what they have to say. That should be worth a few hundred clicks for AI.
If I recall correctly, Steve said that Apple has a fleet of 20 buses running biodiesel. Assuming those buses can hold up to 50 people, that's potentially 1,000 cars eliminated. I think Apple is also giving incentives to employees who bicycle to work, and to employees who carpool.
The main concern seems to be with cars... always cars... with no mention about how you get the employees to the campus. I think these critics want us to go back to the old company town model... build the office and then place company controlled multi story housing all around with company controlled shops on the main floors.
I just wish they'd give examples instead of just criticism. Criticism without solutions is just idiotic to me.
Move it to China with the rest of the operation....
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!
This is still America. How many of you have bothered picking up a copy of our constitution and read it? If you haven't please do so. If Apple decides it wants to build a freaking space ship and put the first store on Mars.... IT'S THEIR MONEY.... they can do whatever in the heck they want to with it. It's not the shareholders.... it's the company's. The CEO, board and shareholders all have input... but not some loser moron of an "Architecture Critic"..... What a freaking joke.
That's right - this is America. And anyone has a right to criticize Apple's design plans, in any forum they want. Before you give us a civics lesson, maybe you could brush up on the concept of Freedom of Speech.
People, people, people, you're ready to kill the guy because he doesn't like Apple's design. Get a grip on yourselves.
If I recall correctly, Steve said that Apple has a fleet of 20 buses running biodiesel. Assuming those buses can hold up to 50 people, that's potentially 1,000 cars eliminated. I think Apple is also giving incentives to employees who bicycle to work, and to employees who carpool.
I should have mentioned that I was talking about the parking spaces for over 4000 vehicles in the parking structure along the 280. My reduction numbers would have reduced the need to zero for that structure in 10 years.
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.
It would be a lot more expensive for Apple to put it underground. And besides - its not like Apple owes a nice view to the people on the freeway. The tall parking lot will shield Apple's property from the noise and pollution.
steve job's design is pedestrian
That's a big part of the point that many critics are making.
Regardless, I think the building design is cool, and I'd love to visit it some day. Apple has built hundreds of buildings around the world now, and every single one of them are pretty amazing. Why would anyone think this new campus wouldn't be spectacular?
And there's nothing wrong with round. And there's nothing wrong with the Pentagon either - some people keep comparing it like there's something wrong with it.
There is a difference between a building that affects the skyline and one that is low and hidden by the natural setting. Really, how many people are going to be able to see it from their home or office? Relatively few I would imagine, at least compared to a skyscraper.
Tens of thousands of people will drive past it every day, and they won't even see it because it will be hidden by the parking garage.
Certainly, the organization of people and departments will be carefully planned to minimize the need to take a sweeping walk around the circumference, and knowing Apple, there may be some pioneering horizontal conveyors to move people quickly, but the design seems to present challenges from this perspective.
Otherwise, I kind of like the futuristic feel, and the large amount of glass and openings in and around the exterior spaces will likely make it feel like an incredibly open environment, as opposed to something confining like many offices do.
de ja vu?
Isn't this story like 2 months old? Or is this some new critic? I swear I've seen this before...
... or is this some other architectural critic making practically identical vague criticisms?
The other critic was from The LA Tmes.
New York and LA are two examples of how Architecture hasn't progressed.
Tens of thousands of people will drive past it every day, and they won't even see it because it will be hidden by the parking garage.
Which also probably blends in very nicely with its surroundings, albeit the i280 concrete jungle.
What I don't understand about the design is the flow - how does one efficiently move through a large circular building?
Certainly, the organization of people and departments will be carefully planned to minimize the need to take a sweeping walk around the circumference, and knowing Apple, there may be some pioneering horizontal conveyors to move people quickly, but the design seems to present challenges from this perspective.
Otherwise, I kind of like the futuristic feel, and the large amount of glass and openings in and around the exterior spaces will likely make it feel like an incredibly open environment, as opposed to something confining like many offices do.
Look at the size of this proposed building compared to the entirty of the other campus with it's four main structures. It might be large enough that you won't notice the curve.
He then went on to call the design "troubling" and "maybe even a bit scary" because he feels the giant circular shape lacks the functionality of devices like the iPhone, iPad or MacBook lineup. He said that architecture should take into account scale, while he feels Apple's new campus does not connect to human size.
Really??? I have only one thing to say about this comment....
Click-Wheel