"removing the feeling of a collective metropolitan realm"
Once I read that, I knew this guy was a kook. He says that as if it is a bad thing. As if everyone and their dog should live in a crowded dirty inner city. The very fact that this building does "[remove] the feeling of a collective metropolitan realm" is a HUGE plus beyond beliefe.
A "crowded dirty inner city" is hardly the Architectural ideal. Most Architectural theorists envision cities that are far more organized and better-planned than any that exist today.
That said, I don't like this guy's tone, either. What he should have said was something about how Apple is such a visionary, wealthy, and influential company that it perhaps should have used this new building as an opportunity to set a new standard in Architecture and urban planning. It would be possible, for example, that this new campus could serve as the foundation of a "city of the future", if you will.
It's not about "the feeling of a metropolitan realm", but rather limitations of space, resources, transit, and environmental concerns that lead the architectural community to largely favor metropolitan development.
That "the feeling of a metropolitan realm" also is dark, depressing and confining is also a reason the vast majority of people fled out of the inner city areas. The idea that you have a campus that can have the best of both is sweet. The openness of all the glass and green will create a sensation of not being held within the prison of a metropolitan realm but still being able to visit for food and culture when needed.
That just sounds like an opinion... no theory involved.
The theories upon which he's basing his opinion are well-established in the Architectural community ? no need to restate them. The principle of "suburban sprawl" was written off decades ago by just about everyone who knows anything about Architecture and urban planning.
Would a medical writer need to break new theoretical ground in depression research in order to criticize a new cold medicine that causes depression? I think not.
A "crowded dirty inner city" is hardly the Architectural ideal. Most Architectural theorists envision cities that are far more organized and better-planned than any that exist today.
The Soleri's of the world have been dreaming of that for decades but it is far from the reality we live in. What Hawthorne calls a "collective metropolitan realm" tend to be a dirty, crime ridden inner cities. The idea that people actually want to live in densely populated space with minimal personal space because we want to interact all the time is absurd.
The theories upon which he's basing his opinion are well-established in the Architectural community ? no need to restate them. The principle of "suburban sprawl" was written off decades ago by just about everyone who knows anything about Architecture and urban planning.
The issue is, most Architectural theorist are also clueless about human interaction, personalities and psychology. We do not want to live with 200,000 other people in a 1 square mile area.
That "the feeling of a metropolitan realm" also is dark, depressing and confining is also a reason the vast majority of people fled out of the inner city areas. The idea that you have a campus that can have the best of both is sweet. The openness of all the glass and green will create a sensation of not being held within the prison of a metropolitan realm but still being able to visit for food and culture when needed.
Again, I will restate that theorists do not think today's inner cities are in any way ideal. Look into current Architectural theory and you will find that the cities envisioned for the future will be vertical, yes. But they will also be rich with vegetation, vertical farms, and centered around major civic structures like museums, theaters, and municipal buildings. If Apple's not the company that will embrace that idea, and build a new campus that could serve as the foundation for such a city, then who?
If every company was to build structures like this one, we'd be left will all the same transit, cultural scarcity, and resource issues we have today.
I would not want to work in a circular environment like that. There is a reason that most of our architecture is right angled, and logical. People will feel out of sorts, disoriented, and uncomfortable in a space like this.
You sound like a women who can't navigate a car lol
Stay off the roads please, perhaps take the bus to your boxed factory job where you feel safe not using your brain.
The issue is, most Architectural theorist are also clueless about human interaction, personalities and psychology. We do not want to live with 200,000 other people in a 1 square mile area.
Read Jennifer Bloomer and tell me you still think that's true. Architectural theory is as much about psychology as it is about engineering. Of course nobody wants to live 200,000 per square mile, but nor is it realistic to think the earth can continue to support all the sprawl required to support an ever-growing population that wants to be surrounded by nothing but trees. There's a happy medium.
If you grew up in or around Cupertino you'd know a few things right off the bat: the area is almost entirely car-driven, and there is no "downtown" to speak of. There's no subway, light rail or commuter train. To reach the local train station requires a 15-minute drive to Sunnyvale. There's an older mall which was once innovative but has faded badly with mismanagement. That mall has the only thing resembling a transit hub and that only serves buses. If a transit -oriented development were suitable (or even possible) then it might make sense. That anchor or magnet doesn't exist. The critic isn't proposing moving out of Cupertino, but he also isn't taking the historical context into account. At least this is in keeping with the history of the Valley, which has few architectural gems and where office buildings are knocked down everyday to make room for new ones. It's not a place for a grand, phallic tower. With a few exceptions, it's a place of understated humility, not Vegas.
"removing the feeling of a collective metropolitan realm"
Once I read that, I knew this guy was a kook. He says that as if it is a bad thing. As if everyone and their dog should live in a crowded dirty inner city. The very fact that this building does "[remove] the feeling of a collective metropolitan realm" is a HUGE plus beyond beliefe.
The comparison with the Pentagon is certainly apt, but Hawthorne gets extra credit for exposing the oxymoron of a "green" building which requires hundreds of thousands of car trips annually. Not surprisingly, the renderings of the main structure feel just like a car ad: the lone gleaming vehicle soaring unobstructed through a gorgeous fantasy landscape. We simply don't want to see the product in its actual context of dirt, frustration, waste, poison, injury, and death.
Apple's new campus will be the transparent iris of a vast bloodshot eye, every capillary of which will be choked with cars, the pupil of which will remain perfectly vacant.
All in all, the article is a remarkably mild criticism of what's really a tragically missed opportunity. There are no significant limitations on what Apple could create at this point in time, but will they build the Bilbao Guggenheim? No - they've settled instead for a sad, nostalgic reference to the space age that never was, surrounded by a traffic jam - the ultimate suburban cliché.
If you grew up in or around Cupertino you'd know a few things right off the bat: the area is almost entirely car-driven, and there is no "downtown" to speak of. There's no subway, light rail or commuter train. To reach the local train station requires a 15-minute drive to Sunnyvale. There's an older mall which was once innovative but has faded badly with mismanagement. That mall has the only thing resembling a transit hub and that only serves buses. If a transit -oriented development were suitable (or even possible) then it might make sense. That anchor or magnet doesn't exist. The critic isn't proposing moving out of Cupertino, but he also isn't taking the historical context into account. At least this is in keeping with the history of the Valley, which has few architectural gems and where office buildings are knocked down everyday to make room for new ones. It's not a place for a grand, phallic tower. With a few exceptions, it's a place of understated humility, not Vegas.
Well said sir.
Ps too much tree huggers here like the post above this.
I think a lot of this is bit of gun jumping here. This is one design for one building for Apple. Not a universal design for every building Apple plans to design or what Steve feels is going to be the future of design. In face from the talk it sound like this is going to be the only "Space ship" ( I could be wrong though). So don't expect to see ships in every city.
Also the basic right angle design of buildings is often used because of the easy grid system used in city planning. They are not building a city they are building a single building. I have worked in hotels for years some very unique shapes, (one under water) and I can tell you from real experience, not sitting playing with a design program, not going to design meetings, not walking through the building once and then never seeing it again, but real every day working in these environment. I have also worked in many a square building. I always found the odd shapes to be more relaxing and inviting then the basic squares. The circle is your friend.
Now this is just opinion and there are not any theories to back up my claims, just the thoughts of someone who like the "space ship".
If you grew up in or around Cupertino you'd know a few things right off the bat: the area is almost entirely car-driven, and there is no "downtown" to speak of. There's no subway, light rail or commuter train. To reach the local train station requires a 15-minute drive to Sunnyvale. There's an older mall which was once innovative but has faded badly with mismanagement. That mall has the only thing resembling a transit hub and that only serves buses. If a transit -oriented development were suitable (or even possible) then it might make sense. That anchor or magnet doesn't exist. The critic isn't proposing moving out of Cupertino, but he also isn't taking the historical context into account. At least this is in keeping with the history of the Valley, which has few architectural gems and where office buildings are knocked down everyday to make room for new ones. It's not a place for a grand, phallic tower. With a few exceptions, it's a place of understated humility, not Vegas.
Correct.
It's not Apple's fault that mass transit doesn't make Cupertino a major destination. It's a largely bedroom community like Saratoga, car-focused because it used to be farmland and far away from the legacy SF-San Jose Caltrain transit corridor. And apart from Apple, there's really nothing else commercially noteworthy in the Cupertino-Saratoga area.
The proposed campus is appropriate for what this community can offer, what the infrastructure would support.
What a prick. Did anyone actually ask for his two-bit opinion? That idiot would have raised hell over the erection of King Tut's tomb and said that a sand mound a simple headstone was all that was needed. I think that circular headquarters is very attractive and possibly an early design by one of the Ringworld Engineers.
The issue is, most Architectural theorist are also clueless about human interaction, personalities and psychology. We do not want to live with 200,000 other people in a 1 square mile area.
Don't forget the architects, they're often just as clueless if not more so. It's an 'Emperor's New Clothes' culture, where they prop each other up by referencing each other's pompous theories, which are usually based on a silly ideal rather than a practical principles. That works fine with modern art, which has tragically become mostly theoretical. But the difference is I only have to suffer contemplating a poorly contrived composite piece when I go to a museum, whereas buildings are out there for everyone to see and experience, good or not.
FWIW, I'm not a fan of modernist architecture, mainly for the reasons mentioned above, but I'm a big fan of Apple architecture, which, in my opinion, almost by itself justifies the modernist movement. Simple, austere structures, often reflecting the local environment, which happen to be perfect spaces to display Apple products.
This reminds me of the folks that were totally against the construction of the Transamerica Building in San Francisco. They raised a serious hissy-fit.
Those folks, like this clown whining about the spaceship just end up disappearing into obscurity.
Thank goodness we have folks that push design and art to the next level.
Oh, and square, angular buildings are done that way because they are easy (i.e. "cheaper") to build.
I remembered reading an article that mentioned something interesting about Jobs and his mentality when it came to architectural design and how he wanted people to interact within the given space...
Quote:
The building in Emeryville is, in Lasseter's words, "Steve Jobs's movie." Jobs not only designed it; he designed it so that people inside it would behave a certain way. "Steve really believes in the accidental meeting," Lasseter says, and to that end he designed the building around a cathedral-like atrium, which is also where he located all the bathrooms and the subsidized company commissary. "Steve really believes that it's important to have great food," Lasseter says.
So I'm assuming in some part, that idea was incorporated into this building.
Comments
"removing the feeling of a collective metropolitan realm"
Once I read that, I knew this guy was a kook. He says that as if it is a bad thing. As if everyone and their dog should live in a crowded dirty inner city. The very fact that this building does "[remove] the feeling of a collective metropolitan realm" is a HUGE plus beyond beliefe.
A "crowded dirty inner city" is hardly the Architectural ideal. Most Architectural theorists envision cities that are far more organized and better-planned than any that exist today.
That said, I don't like this guy's tone, either. What he should have said was something about how Apple is such a visionary, wealthy, and influential company that it perhaps should have used this new building as an opportunity to set a new standard in Architecture and urban planning. It would be possible, for example, that this new campus could serve as the foundation of a "city of the future", if you will.
It's not about "the feeling of a metropolitan realm", but rather limitations of space, resources, transit, and environmental concerns that lead the architectural community to largely favor metropolitan development.
That "the feeling of a metropolitan realm" also is dark, depressing and confining is also a reason the vast majority of people fled out of the inner city areas. The idea that you have a campus that can have the best of both is sweet. The openness of all the glass and green will create a sensation of not being held within the prison of a metropolitan realm but still being able to visit for food and culture when needed.
That just sounds like an opinion... no theory involved.
The theories upon which he's basing his opinion are well-established in the Architectural community ? no need to restate them. The principle of "suburban sprawl" was written off decades ago by just about everyone who knows anything about Architecture and urban planning.
Would a medical writer need to break new theoretical ground in depression research in order to criticize a new cold medicine that causes depression? I think not.
A "crowded dirty inner city" is hardly the Architectural ideal. Most Architectural theorists envision cities that are far more organized and better-planned than any that exist today.
The Soleri's of the world have been dreaming of that for decades but it is far from the reality we live in. What Hawthorne calls a "collective metropolitan realm" tend to be a dirty, crime ridden inner cities. The idea that people actually want to live in densely populated space with minimal personal space because we want to interact all the time is absurd.
The theories upon which he's basing his opinion are well-established in the Architectural community ? no need to restate them. The principle of "suburban sprawl" was written off decades ago by just about everyone who knows anything about Architecture and urban planning.
The issue is, most Architectural theorist are also clueless about human interaction, personalities and psychology. We do not want to live with 200,000 other people in a 1 square mile area.
That "the feeling of a metropolitan realm" also is dark, depressing and confining is also a reason the vast majority of people fled out of the inner city areas. The idea that you have a campus that can have the best of both is sweet. The openness of all the glass and green will create a sensation of not being held within the prison of a metropolitan realm but still being able to visit for food and culture when needed.
Again, I will restate that theorists do not think today's inner cities are in any way ideal. Look into current Architectural theory and you will find that the cities envisioned for the future will be vertical, yes. But they will also be rich with vegetation, vertical farms, and centered around major civic structures like museums, theaters, and municipal buildings. If Apple's not the company that will embrace that idea, and build a new campus that could serve as the foundation for such a city, then who?
If every company was to build structures like this one, we'd be left will all the same transit, cultural scarcity, and resource issues we have today.
I would not want to work in a circular environment like that. There is a reason that most of our architecture is right angled, and logical. People will feel out of sorts, disoriented, and uncomfortable in a space like this.
You sound like a women who can't navigate a car lol
Stay off the roads please, perhaps take the bus to your boxed factory job where you feel safe not using your brain.
The issue is, most Architectural theorist are also clueless about human interaction, personalities and psychology. We do not want to live with 200,000 other people in a 1 square mile area.
Read Jennifer Bloomer and tell me you still think that's true. Architectural theory is as much about psychology as it is about engineering. Of course nobody wants to live 200,000 per square mile, but nor is it realistic to think the earth can continue to support all the sprawl required to support an ever-growing population that wants to be surrounded by nothing but trees. There's a happy medium.
"removing the feeling of a collective metropolitan realm"
Once I read that, I knew this guy was a kook. He says that as if it is a bad thing. As if everyone and their dog should live in a crowded dirty inner city. The very fact that this building does "[remove] the feeling of a collective metropolitan realm" is a HUGE plus beyond beliefe.
Agreed.
Apple's new campus will be the transparent iris of a vast bloodshot eye, every capillary of which will be choked with cars, the pupil of which will remain perfectly vacant.
All in all, the article is a remarkably mild criticism of what's really a tragically missed opportunity. There are no significant limitations on what Apple could create at this point in time, but will they build the Bilbao Guggenheim? No - they've settled instead for a sad, nostalgic reference to the space age that never was, surrounded by a traffic jam - the ultimate suburban cliché.
If you grew up in or around Cupertino you'd know a few things right off the bat: the area is almost entirely car-driven, and there is no "downtown" to speak of. There's no subway, light rail or commuter train. To reach the local train station requires a 15-minute drive to Sunnyvale. There's an older mall which was once innovative but has faded badly with mismanagement. That mall has the only thing resembling a transit hub and that only serves buses. If a transit -oriented development were suitable (or even possible) then it might make sense. That anchor or magnet doesn't exist. The critic isn't proposing moving out of Cupertino, but he also isn't taking the historical context into account. At least this is in keeping with the history of the Valley, which has few architectural gems and where office buildings are knocked down everyday to make room for new ones. It's not a place for a grand, phallic tower. With a few exceptions, it's a place of understated humility, not Vegas.
Well said sir.
Ps too much tree huggers here like the post above this.
Also the basic right angle design of buildings is often used because of the easy grid system used in city planning. They are not building a city they are building a single building. I have worked in hotels for years some very unique shapes, (one under water) and I can tell you from real experience, not sitting playing with a design program, not going to design meetings, not walking through the building once and then never seeing it again, but real every day working in these environment. I have also worked in many a square building. I always found the odd shapes to be more relaxing and inviting then the basic squares. The circle is your friend.
Now this is just opinion and there are not any theories to back up my claims, just the thoughts of someone who like the "space ship".
If you grew up in or around Cupertino you'd know a few things right off the bat: the area is almost entirely car-driven, and there is no "downtown" to speak of. There's no subway, light rail or commuter train. To reach the local train station requires a 15-minute drive to Sunnyvale. There's an older mall which was once innovative but has faded badly with mismanagement. That mall has the only thing resembling a transit hub and that only serves buses. If a transit -oriented development were suitable (or even possible) then it might make sense. That anchor or magnet doesn't exist. The critic isn't proposing moving out of Cupertino, but he also isn't taking the historical context into account. At least this is in keeping with the history of the Valley, which has few architectural gems and where office buildings are knocked down everyday to make room for new ones. It's not a place for a grand, phallic tower. With a few exceptions, it's a place of understated humility, not Vegas.
Correct.
It's not Apple's fault that mass transit doesn't make Cupertino a major destination. It's a largely bedroom community like Saratoga, car-focused because it used to be farmland and far away from the legacy SF-San Jose Caltrain transit corridor. And apart from Apple, there's really nothing else commercially noteworthy in the Cupertino-Saratoga area.
The proposed campus is appropriate for what this community can offer, what the infrastructure would support.
I would not want to work in a circular environment like that.
What? you can't work well because you're on a curved building?
You: Oh my, I'm on a circular building! I can't think well!
There is a reason that most of our architecture is right angled, and logical.
Just because it's easy to build? Just because it's easy to place your furnitures, things, etc?
You just think too much lol
The issue is, most Architectural theorist are also clueless about human interaction, personalities and psychology. We do not want to live with 200,000 other people in a 1 square mile area.
Don't forget the architects, they're often just as clueless if not more so. It's an 'Emperor's New Clothes' culture, where they prop each other up by referencing each other's pompous theories, which are usually based on a silly ideal rather than a practical principles. That works fine with modern art, which has tragically become mostly theoretical. But the difference is I only have to suffer contemplating a poorly contrived composite piece when I go to a museum, whereas buildings are out there for everyone to see and experience, good or not.
FWIW, I'm not a fan of modernist architecture, mainly for the reasons mentioned above, but I'm a big fan of Apple architecture, which, in my opinion, almost by itself justifies the modernist movement. Simple, austere structures, often reflecting the local environment, which happen to be perfect spaces to display Apple products.
Those folks, like this clown whining about the spaceship just end up disappearing into obscurity.
Thank goodness we have folks that push design and art to the next level.
Oh, and square, angular buildings are done that way because they are easy (i.e. "cheaper") to build.
I remembered reading an article that mentioned something interesting about Jobs and his mentality when it came to architectural design and how he wanted people to interact within the given space...
The building in Emeryville is, in Lasseter's words, "Steve Jobs's movie." Jobs not only designed it; he designed it so that people inside it would behave a certain way. "Steve really believes in the accidental meeting," Lasseter says, and to that end he designed the building around a cathedral-like atrium, which is also where he located all the bathrooms and the subsidized company commissary. "Steve really believes that it's important to have great food," Lasseter says.
So I'm assuming in some part, that idea was incorporated into this building.