Apple cans plans for Portland retail store
For the second time in less than a year, Apple Computer has canceled plans for a new retail store after opposition from a local landmarks preservation group.
According to a report in Daily Journal of Commerce (summarized at ifoAppleStore), Apple has decided not to pursue a new retail store at 437 N.W. 23rd Ave. in downtown Portland, Ore. after the city's landmarks commission gave the company the runaround on its design proposals.
Apple's original plans called for the existing two-story building to be razed and replaced by a double-height, single-story Apple retail store that would be adorned with glass, stainless steel and a back-lit Apple logo.
The iPod maker and its development partner Holst Architecture presented their design to the city?s Historic Landmarks Commission in early February, but were met with considerable opposition.
Specifically, the commission took issues with Apple's "articulation of [...] materials" and said that "less or no stainless steel/metal cladding would be more appropriate."
Apple and Holst returned before the commission in mid-June with a revised store design that replaced the stainless steel with limestone and more windows. However, the two-hour hearing ended without a vote and with the a commission chairmen calling the updated design "franchise architecture."
In a similar situation, Apple last September abandoned plans for a two-story retail store in Manhattan's Flatiron district after the Community Board for the Ladies Miles Historic District and the city?s Landmarks Preservation Commission took issue with the proposed all-glass storefront.
Apple, which currently operates two flagship retail stores in Manhattan, eventually pressed forward with plans for a third store on the island, signing a new lease opposite the Empire State Building at 21 W. 34th Street.
According to a report in Daily Journal of Commerce (summarized at ifoAppleStore), Apple has decided not to pursue a new retail store at 437 N.W. 23rd Ave. in downtown Portland, Ore. after the city's landmarks commission gave the company the runaround on its design proposals.
Apple's original plans called for the existing two-story building to be razed and replaced by a double-height, single-story Apple retail store that would be adorned with glass, stainless steel and a back-lit Apple logo.
The iPod maker and its development partner Holst Architecture presented their design to the city?s Historic Landmarks Commission in early February, but were met with considerable opposition.
Specifically, the commission took issues with Apple's "articulation of [...] materials" and said that "less or no stainless steel/metal cladding would be more appropriate."
Apple and Holst returned before the commission in mid-June with a revised store design that replaced the stainless steel with limestone and more windows. However, the two-hour hearing ended without a vote and with the a commission chairmen calling the updated design "franchise architecture."
In a similar situation, Apple last September abandoned plans for a two-story retail store in Manhattan's Flatiron district after the Community Board for the Ladies Miles Historic District and the city?s Landmarks Preservation Commission took issue with the proposed all-glass storefront.
Apple, which currently operates two flagship retail stores in Manhattan, eventually pressed forward with plans for a third store on the island, signing a new lease opposite the Empire State Building at 21 W. 34th Street.
Comments
I can only imagine the groups Apple is having to deal with. Of all the companies in the world, Apple has the most taste. If they can't get something by these people, no one can. The franchise architecture quote gives it away. Although I can understand the concern, it seems snooty and dismissive at the same time.
Either way, Apple's only choice was to walk away and never return to Portland, Oregon. It also sets a bad precedent for other business thinking about Portland, that no doubt will see the outcome. The commission should have given Apple an explicit and truthful response if it wants to be taken seriously by the business community.
We had a good example of that a few years ago. The was a man in this city a couple of generations ago who was well known for his negotiations with and for the city unions, and others. We have a road called 69th Avenue. The unions wanted to change the name to Harry Van Arsdale Jr. Avenue. Those who live throughout the length of the Avenue were strongly opposed to that for obvious reasons.
But, under the influence of the unions the politicians pressured those members whose nominations they were responsible for, and both the union and the politicians showed up the night of the vote.
You can guess how that went.
But I do think that Apple should be less inclined towards their own design motif when opposition is strong. People won't care. They just want to go to the store.
Originally posted by melgross
But I do think that Apple should be less inclined towards their own design motif when opposition is strong. People won't care. They just want to go to the store.
True enough, but from the information we have Portland didn't communicate that need until after the first redesign. They might have gotten a different response from Apple had their message been consistent.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
True enough, but from the information we have Portland didn't communicate that need until after the first redesign. They might have gotten a different response from Apple had their message been consistent.
Apple could have asked if there was any constraint on a design before they presented one. They could have found out that stainless steel was not acceptable from the beginning, and saved themselves one confrontational meeting. The second meeting could therefor have been the first, with the closer design. Then, a second meeting could have resolved the issues.
The way they did it, there was suspicion from the beginning. If Apple had asked, the board would have felt more positive about Apple's attitude, and would have been more inclined to give them more leeway.
Apple's stores are not monuments that must have their vision maintained. Look at the problems they are having developing the downtown World Trade Center here in NYC. This is small beans. Apple should do whatever the historical commission wants. Just make it look nice. This is nonsense.
Portland is a gorgeous city full of elaborate Mason-built buildings...Italianate & Victorian-style homes...many trees & even more gardens..and a lot of history.
Here, in Portland, things change slowly..and carefully...The majority of the people who live here do *not* want homogenization of their urban, garden-like landscape into some crappy strip-mall-esque facade which so plagues much of America.
If the Historic Landmarks Commission is involved in the matter, then it means Apple wants to alter some historical building beyond recognition. That's simply not allowed.
It all boils down to something much like this
edit: Frankly, the use of the steel, etc. along with the glowing Apple logo would have looked ass-ugly & gaudy in contrast to the other businesses in the area.
Perhaps Apple should look into Bridgeport Village instead.
I guess the commission thought it just wouldn't look right?
The proposed site is in Portland's most upscale shopping district. Yuppie. SUV. Two Starbucks. Et cetera. Few can afford to own a home or shop there.
Government design processes are flawed, but complaining that Apple can't airlift in their own postmodern box without any serious consideration of the site, the context, or the people's will and sensibilities is ludicrous.
In Portland, there's serious effort to tell global chain stores that this stuff matters. It's not just about historic preservation--it's about a way of life, and much more.
You don't think this stuff matters? Wow.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple could have asked if there was any constraint on a design before they presented one. They could have found out that stainless steel was not acceptable from the beginning, and saved themselves one confrontational meeting. The second meeting could therefor have been the first, with the closer design. Then, a second meeting could have resolved the issues.
The way they did it, there was suspicion from the beginning. If Apple had asked, the board would have felt more positive about Apple's attitude, and would have been more inclined to give them more leeway.
Agreed, nonetheless their initial response was incomplete, so in my mind both are at fault. If there were no cases of Apple altering their designs and facades for similar requests, however, and be a bit less sympathetic to their argument (though no more to Portland's, and it's not as if I don't agree to their high standard, it's just my initial response to the way it was presented).
Honestly, why bother with Portand's downtown? Just one mile north is a popular mall, not to mention other nearby malls in Beaverton, Lake Oswego, etc. Just put in several smaller Mall stores and target their core iPod shoppers where they live.
Regarding the Apple resellers; I've known some and had good relationships with some and not so good with others. I think Apple handled the situation very poorly, but in the end they gave them a non-verbal vote of no confidence in their ability to sell the brand, which inevitably is their right. They just took the chicken-shit route to get there.
The absolute insistence on a single, unified "look" for everything Apple is one of those Steve "obsessive compulsive" Jobs things that I think sometimes gets in the way of simple functionality.
Would it be so horrible if some of the Apple stores were in renovated buildings that preserved the architectural style of the original? I personally would find that a refreshing change of pace from the clinical look.
Instead he alienated a major company that would have been good for businesses in that area. So now he will say "Apple wanted to build another generic store, but I stood up to them and protected the architectural and historic integrity of this town."
Originally posted by addabox
I think Apple should develop second and third tier store designs for when the "big stainless steel box" look doesn't work. Some way of incorporating the brand into existing architectural settings (have they already done this in some locations? Can't remember at the moment).
SoHo is one.
If they embraced historic architecture, just think of all the incredible buildings that would be open to their purchase and renovation. They could get into highly protected spots and the resulting designs might be more appropriate. Maybe better image/class than what the current designs would provide in certain cities/subcultures?
A store in Washington Sq
And in Bridgeport Village
Apple just wants a larger store in the downtown area
They are looking in the Yuppie 23rd ave area and the Yuppie Pearl Distric
Virgil
I've had problems in the past in trying to work in Portland on design projects. It is hard, especially for outsiders. The priorities are a little different.