Thank you. And if the glass is in fact reflective, you will see nothing but nature and animals, er, people, in it. Imagine that. How inhuman.
Wow. A mirror a mile long and 50 feet high. Brilliant, human scale design. Great idea. Never been thought of before. Never mind about frying the vegetation with twice the sunlight they evolved to handle.
I am sure Thomas Jefferson, FL Wright, Lois Kahn and other great American architects would really appreciate the incredible creativity.
Wow. A mirror a mile long and 50 feet high. Brilliant, human scale design. Great idea. Never been thought of before. Never mind about frying the vegetation with twice the sunlight they evolved to handle.
Suggesting the proposed new campus is "like a donut" is a fair assessment, just as you could say every skyscraper is "like a candy bar".
The question is whats wrong with a donut?
The HUGE benefit to this style of architecture is that it provides employees with a maximized number of window offices. A square layout (most skyscrapers) provide the least percentage of windowed offices. Research suggests employees are more productive and have a better outlook on their work environment when they aren't crammed into offices with no view.
Wrong!
Simple geometry tells us that a circle has the LEAST exterior surface of any shape, certainly far less than a square plan would have. So if you want employees to actually have views and windows, this shape is the last one you would pick.
Simple geometry tells us that a circle has the LEAST exterior surface of any shape, certainly far less than a square plan would have. So if you want employees to actually have views and windows, this shape is the last one you would pick.
1) You could at least put a little effort into your trolling. Note the inside of this "circle" is all windows showing off a very large outdoor area. This design has more windowed siding than any solid square structure you can put forth for the internal floor area. If you don't believe us why don't you point to a square plan that has more vertical windows area per internal floorspace; a usable building, not a corridor between buildings.
2) How much of an asshat must you be to hate take your hatred for Apple into a project not actually designed by Apple or have to do with one of their products?
Wow. A mirror a mile long and 50 feet high. Brilliant, human scale design. Great idea. Never been thought of before. Never mind about frying the vegetation with twice the sunlight they evolved to handle.
I am sure Thomas Jefferson, FL Wright, Lois Kahn and other great American architects would really appreciate the incredible creativity.
You're not even paying attention are you.
Other than the dining area tell me where there is a 50 foot high wall of glass.
1) You could at least put a little effort into your trolling. Note the inside of this "circle" is all windows showing off a very large outdoor area. This design has more windowed siding than any solid square structure you can put forth for the internal floor area. If you don't believe us why don't you point to a square plan that has more vertical windows area per internal floorspace; a usable building, not a corridor between buildings.
2) How much of an asshat must you be to hate take your hatred for Apple into a project not actually designed by Apple or have to do with one of their products?
2) Wrong. I have owned and loved Apple products since my beloved Mac 512Ke in 1987.
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.
1) That is just a courtyard scheme. The glass on the inside of a "round" courtyard has less surface area than a square courtyard would have. If one is doing a courtyard design (which is not a bad idea) you would get more windows with a square courtyard, in the ratio of 4 to 3.1417. Is that so hard to understand?
The reason (one of them at least) we architect do designs that are more complicated shapes is to maximize the surface area and get the most light and views for the inhabitants.
Other than the dining area tell me where there is a 50 foot high wall of glass.
Oh, excuse me. The last time I say the design (on the video of the City Council meeting) it was ALL glass. Now it is, what, 80% reflective glass? Wow, that makes a HUGE difference.
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.
Oh, excuse me. The last time I say the design (on the video of the City Council meeting) it was ALL glass. Now it is, what, 80% reflective glass? Wow, that makes a HUGE difference.
So, in other words, you haven't been paying attention.
When you actually have a look at the drawings get back to me.
Until then you're just looking rather stupid.
... and it looks like you are changing your original statement to suit your argument. Your original statement, as everyone knows, was that it was a 50 foot wall of glass. Wrong. Educate yourself.
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.
The reason that Apple gives discounts to teachers is that:
Those who can, teach.
Those who can't, go into some less significant line of work.
(You'll be shocked to learn that I'm a teacher....)
Looks very nice to me. It makes perfect sense to have a donut shape to maximize the views of the landscaping that they plan on. The building really becomes minimal with the lush trees, shrubs, and grasses.
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.
I could not agree more. In the words of Mel Brooks:
"And of course, with the birth of the artist came the inevitable afterbirth... the critic"
Aesthetically I love the building but, functionally, I can see some quirks: organizing a meeting between people working at diametrically opposed sides of the building is going to be impractical.
Aesthetically I love the building but, functionally, I can see some quirks: organizing a meeting between people working at diametrically opposed sides of the building is going to be impractical.
Is it any worse than organizing a meeting with someone in a building across campus? In the rainy season?
No, that whole line of reasoning is highly overblown and couch potato-centric in its origins. At least you can stay under roof the whole time and being able to take a long mind clearing walk around the ring even in nasty weather is something every designer and engineer could appreciate.
Geez, at least folks could put some thought into their points rather then serve them up as tasty niblets for the grist mill. And at least this critic amply stated a whole bunch of obvious personal opinion, rather then trying to cloak it in faux academic ramblings. While I don't agree entirely, he is entitled to an opinion and having the guts to lay it out like that is more upstanding than the wormlike column of Hawthorne.
2) Wrong. I have owned and loved Apple products since my beloved Mac 512Ke in 1987.
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.
1) That is just a courtyard scheme. The glass on the inside of a "round" courtyard has less surface area than a square courtyard would have. If one is doing a courtyard design (which is not a bad idea) you would get more windows with a square courtyard, in the ratio of 4 to 3.1417. Is that so hard to understand?
The reason (one of them at least) we architect do designs that are more complicated shapes is to maximize the surface area and get the most light and views for the inhabitants.
I used to have an office in one of those maximized interior courtyard corners. They are highly overrated, a happy day was the move to a non-stuck in the interior corner office.
Remember, individuals aren't equations to be optimized. What matters to the individual is the quality, not just the equation optimization of a surface area.
1) You could at least put a little effort into your trolling. Note the inside of this "circle" is all windows showing off a very large outdoor area. This design has more windowed siding than any solid square structure you can put forth for the internal floor area. If you don't believe us why don't you point to a square plan that has more vertical windows area per internal floorspace; a usable building, not a corridor between buildings.
2) How much of an asshat must you be to hate take your hatred for Apple into a project not actually designed by Apple or have to do with one of their products?
Actually, as annoying as JONOROM is, mathematically he was correct. The circle has the minimum circumference per enclosed volume.
What he happened to be missing is that design isn't about blindly selecting a mathematical relationship to optimize, and that the circular ring will contain the minimal exterior surface area for the internal enclosed volume. Which happens to be a good engineering tradeoff for heating/cooling concerns. Meaning the building will inherently have a head start on maintaining human environmental energy efficiency.
It also means everyone is connected so nobody has to take anything sensitive outside between campus buildings, or you get to stay out of the rain on the way to the other side if you want.
It is also more egalitarian. No premier corner offices for ego-straining jerks to aspire to and hold over underlings as a status symbol.
Actually, as annoying as JONOROM is, mathematically he was correct. The circle has the minimum circumference per enclosed volume.
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.
Quote:
also means everyone is connected so nobody has to take anything sensitive outside between campus buildings, or you get to stay out of the rain on the way to the other side if you want.
Do to the sheer size of this structure I would image there are at least 2 underground walkways going across the courtyard space.
Quote:
It is also more egalitarian. No premier corner offices for ego-straining jerks to aspire to and hold over underlings as a status symbol.
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.
I am also an architect, so you can call me names too, if you want.
Goldberger's major critique of this design is scale. He is right. Imagine this:
You walk up to this building - there is NO character or detail, just an infinite plane of reflecting glass 50' high, stretching to infinity to your left and right (although it does curve out of view in a quarter mile or so). That's it. That's all folks, there is nothing more to see.
Is that great design? If you think so, please tell me why.
It's not reflecting glass. You can see right through the structure. The detail is inside instead of outside. That alone is worth consideration, putting all the visible detail on the inner parts of the building instead of the outer. And it's an 800+ ft radius - so the round thing is no longer round when you're next to it. The renderings seem to show that it curves just enough so you'll never see the immensity of the building, just the part near you. That's pretty cool. (When you're next to it, it curves out of view a lot sooner than 1/4 mile.) And there's plenty to see if you're inside: the outdoors.
Look, the history of architecture is like the history of art and of science and of literature and of music: it's the history of getting in dutch with people who claim the new thing is against god, nature and decency. 50 years later, it's a classic / breakthrough / visionary. No architect ever distinguished him or herself by doing the same thing everyone else did. "Great design" marries form and function and often in a new model of doing so. I believe this does.
Comments
Thank you. And if the glass is in fact reflective, you will see nothing but nature and animals, er, people, in it. Imagine that. How inhuman.
Wow. A mirror a mile long and 50 feet high. Brilliant, human scale design. Great idea. Never been thought of before. Never mind about frying the vegetation with twice the sunlight they evolved to handle.
I am sure Thomas Jefferson, FL Wright, Lois Kahn and other great American architects would really appreciate the incredible creativity.
Wow. A mirror a mile long and 50 feet high. Brilliant, human scale design. Great idea. Never been thought of before. Never mind about frying the vegetation with twice the sunlight they evolved to handle.
Come off it.
Suggesting the proposed new campus is "like a donut" is a fair assessment, just as you could say every skyscraper is "like a candy bar".
The question is whats wrong with a donut?
The HUGE benefit to this style of architecture is that it provides employees with a maximized number of window offices. A square layout (most skyscrapers) provide the least percentage of windowed offices. Research suggests employees are more productive and have a better outlook on their work environment when they aren't crammed into offices with no view.
Wrong!
Simple geometry tells us that a circle has the LEAST exterior surface of any shape, certainly far less than a square plan would have. So if you want employees to actually have views and windows, this shape is the last one you would pick.
Wrong!
Simple geometry tells us that a circle has the LEAST exterior surface of any shape, certainly far less than a square plan would have. So if you want employees to actually have views and windows, this shape is the last one you would pick.
1) You could at least put a little effort into your trolling. Note the inside of this "circle" is all windows showing off a very large outdoor area. This design has more windowed siding than any solid square structure you can put forth for the internal floor area. If you don't believe us why don't you point to a square plan that has more vertical windows area per internal floorspace; a usable building, not a corridor between buildings.
2) How much of an asshat must you be to hate take your hatred for Apple into a project not actually designed by Apple or have to do with one of their products?
Wow. A mirror a mile long and 50 feet high. Brilliant, human scale design. Great idea. Never been thought of before. Never mind about frying the vegetation with twice the sunlight they evolved to handle.
I am sure Thomas Jefferson, FL Wright, Lois Kahn and other great American architects would really appreciate the incredible creativity.
You're not even paying attention are you.
Other than the dining area tell me where there is a 50 foot high wall of glass.
1) You could at least put a little effort into your trolling. Note the inside of this "circle" is all windows showing off a very large outdoor area. This design has more windowed siding than any solid square structure you can put forth for the internal floor area. If you don't believe us why don't you point to a square plan that has more vertical windows area per internal floorspace; a usable building, not a corridor between buildings.
2) How much of an asshat must you be to hate take your hatred for Apple into a project not actually designed by Apple or have to do with one of their products?
2) Wrong. I have owned and loved Apple products since my beloved Mac 512Ke in 1987.
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.
1) That is just a courtyard scheme. The glass on the inside of a "round" courtyard has less surface area than a square courtyard would have. If one is doing a courtyard design (which is not a bad idea) you would get more windows with a square courtyard, in the ratio of 4 to 3.1417. Is that so hard to understand?
The reason (one of them at least) we architect do designs that are more complicated shapes is to maximize the surface area and get the most light and views for the inhabitants.
You're not even paying attention are you.
Other than the dining area tell me where there is a 50 foot high wall of glass.
Oh, excuse me. The last time I say the design (on the video of the City Council meeting) it was ALL glass. Now it is, what, 80% reflective glass? Wow, that makes a HUGE difference.
2)
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.
You're too funny.
Oh, excuse me. The last time I say the design (on the video of the City Council meeting) it was ALL glass. Now it is, what, 80% reflective glass? Wow, that makes a HUGE difference.
So, in other words, you haven't been paying attention.
When you actually have a look at the drawings get back to me.
Until then you're just looking rather stupid.
... and it looks like you are changing your original statement to suit your argument. Your original statement, as everyone knows, was that it was a 50 foot wall of glass. Wrong. Educate yourself.
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.
The reason that Apple gives discounts to teachers is that:
Those who can, teach.
Those who can't, go into some less significant line of work.
(You'll be shocked to learn that I'm a teacher....)
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.
I could not agree more. In the words of Mel Brooks:
"And of course, with the birth of the artist came the inevitable afterbirth... the critic"
-History of the World Part I
Let's call it, the Great Gaping Annulus.
Describing yourself is never as funny as you think.
Aesthetically I love the building but, functionally, I can see some quirks: organizing a meeting between people working at diametrically opposed sides of the building is going to be impractical.
Is it any worse than organizing a meeting with someone in a building across campus? In the rainy season?
No, that whole line of reasoning is highly overblown and couch potato-centric in its origins. At least you can stay under roof the whole time and being able to take a long mind clearing walk around the ring even in nasty weather is something every designer and engineer could appreciate.
Geez, at least folks could put some thought into their points rather then serve them up as tasty niblets for the grist mill. And at least this critic amply stated a whole bunch of obvious personal opinion, rather then trying to cloak it in faux academic ramblings. While I don't agree entirely, he is entitled to an opinion and having the guts to lay it out like that is more upstanding than the wormlike column of Hawthorne.
2) Wrong. I have owned and loved Apple products since my beloved Mac 512Ke in 1987.
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.
1) That is just a courtyard scheme. The glass on the inside of a "round" courtyard has less surface area than a square courtyard would have. If one is doing a courtyard design (which is not a bad idea) you would get more windows with a square courtyard, in the ratio of 4 to 3.1417. Is that so hard to understand?
The reason (one of them at least) we architect do designs that are more complicated shapes is to maximize the surface area and get the most light and views for the inhabitants.
I used to have an office in one of those maximized interior courtyard corners. They are highly overrated, a happy day was the move to a non-stuck in the interior corner office.
Remember, individuals aren't equations to be optimized. What matters to the individual is the quality, not just the equation optimization of a surface area.
1) You could at least put a little effort into your trolling. Note the inside of this "circle" is all windows showing off a very large outdoor area. This design has more windowed siding than any solid square structure you can put forth for the internal floor area. If you don't believe us why don't you point to a square plan that has more vertical windows area per internal floorspace; a usable building, not a corridor between buildings.
2) How much of an asshat must you be to hate take your hatred for Apple into a project not actually designed by Apple or have to do with one of their products?
Actually, as annoying as JONOROM is, mathematically he was correct. The circle has the minimum circumference per enclosed volume.
What he happened to be missing is that design isn't about blindly selecting a mathematical relationship to optimize, and that the circular ring will contain the minimal exterior surface area for the internal enclosed volume. Which happens to be a good engineering tradeoff for heating/cooling concerns. Meaning the building will inherently have a head start on maintaining human environmental energy efficiency.
It also means everyone is connected so nobody has to take anything sensitive outside between campus buildings, or you get to stay out of the rain on the way to the other side if you want.
It is also more egalitarian. No premier corner offices for ego-straining jerks to aspire to and hold over underlings as a status symbol.
Actually, as annoying as JONOROM is, mathematically he was correct. The circle has the minimum circumference per enclosed volume.
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.
also means everyone is connected so nobody has to take anything sensitive outside between campus buildings, or you get to stay out of the rain on the way to the other side if you want.
Do to the sheer size of this structure I would image there are at least 2 underground walkways going across the courtyard space.
It is also more egalitarian. No premier corner offices for ego-straining jerks to aspire to and hold over underlings as a status symbol.
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.
I am also an architect, so you can call me names too, if you want.
Goldberger's major critique of this design is scale. He is right. Imagine this:
You walk up to this building - there is NO character or detail, just an infinite plane of reflecting glass 50' high, stretching to infinity to your left and right (although it does curve out of view in a quarter mile or so). That's it. That's all folks, there is nothing more to see.
Is that great design? If you think so, please tell me why.
It's not reflecting glass. You can see right through the structure. The detail is inside instead of outside. That alone is worth consideration, putting all the visible detail on the inner parts of the building instead of the outer. And it's an 800+ ft radius - so the round thing is no longer round when you're next to it. The renderings seem to show that it curves just enough so you'll never see the immensity of the building, just the part near you. That's pretty cool. (When you're next to it, it curves out of view a lot sooner than 1/4 mile.) And there's plenty to see if you're inside: the outdoors.
Look, the history of architecture is like the history of art and of science and of literature and of music: it's the history of getting in dutch with people who claim the new thing is against god, nature and decency. 50 years later, it's a classic / breakthrough / visionary. No architect ever distinguished him or herself by doing the same thing everyone else did. "Great design" marries form and function and often in a new model of doing so. I believe this does.