While I?m far from an expert on the subject I?ve read a little about designing/structuring spaces to enhance particular ways humans interact with the environment.
The comment that this campus is not well integrated within the rest of the city is a valid point, but in all fairness which company really does that with their HQ now that secrecy is paramount to maintaining a competitive advantage?
The design is not bad it?s just emphasising internal rather than external collaboration. The low profile encourages people to walk between floors and office spaces rather than take elevators. And the circular shape encourages outdoor excursions [and exercise] by making them the shortest route between any two points.
The all glass exterior makes this less imposing. Much like Apple products, it doesn?t pretend to ?fit? into the existing landscape, but rather ?invite? you into a new one.
Great points!
I would argue (as others have) that the lack of integration into the urban sprawl/concrete community is a positive thing, providing an example for the rest of the city to emulate/adapt to.
To me, the building also looks very inefficient. Ok, with 4 levels, you don't need an elevator, but to go from north to south you seed a Segway. A cube or a skyscraper would have been more efficient to get from point a to point b. I also don't understand why apple is already planing campus 3. Look at all the completely unused space around the circle building. Why not just adding something to this structure? Why not just building 6 instead of 4 floors and problem is solved?
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 evidently haven't been paying attention. People have been living and working onboard the USS Enterprise for years quite happily. The scale of the thing provides the illusion of nice, cosily-familiar, right-angled corners to nearly all the rooms?I just wouldn't want to be the drywall guy!
"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.
One of the more interesting things about rhetoric and the peculiar "wrapper" in which it is ensconced, is that there is often a plurality of perspectives at work in a discussion like this, all having validity within their own framework and all typically either "dissed or dismissed" by adherents within each perspective.
Here there seems to be no less than three different viewpoints (please see below), each with their own internalized dialogue for validation – and perhaps many more, once one removes themselves from the pedestrian nature of this particular query.
1. Your viewpoint - the "Tomato, Tomahto – Potato, Potahto view" (which essentially states that the presenter's entire assumption set is invalid and hence imminently discardable; - btw, I am inclined to agree (if not embrace) the overall logic you present.
2. The presenter's viewpoint - the "It is part of my mundane job that I create a tempest in a teapot by often commenting in a derisive manner about things I ultimately don't really understand" view, underscored by the fact that they buy ink by the barrel.
3. The architectural critics' viewpoint - the "Great Conversation" by internal experts that any discipline develops in its ongoing effort to define and refine itself. Often misunderstood by outsiders, it is often a memorial to both the need to distinguish and the need to publish, and is typically misunderstood by those not familiar with the internal conventions of the Conversation.
There is, of course, other viewpoints that should be mentioned - perhaps Steve Jobs' most notably. Although I have never met him, much less know him - I can pretend to try to understand him given the vast storehouse of anecdotal information available. His view seems to be instinctual - the ability to know - at an atavistic level - what needs to be done (often while flying in the face of the so-called collective wisdom of one's time).
Given Mr. Jobs' track record, it would seem as though Christopher Hawthorne might check his Michael Dell hole card - and conclude that, despite all the tea leaves, bone tosses, and murmurrings from lesser sons of a disgruntled proletariat, on further reflection, he might posit that a round spaceship disconnecting one from the secular rhythms of civil mendacity that must ripple through any metropolitan area is an excellent idea and the overall order of the day.
I would worry if there weren't differing opinions on design.
Of course, I've never been to fond of Architects. They barely can handle basic calculus, let alone a statics course and often are failed fine arts majors who chose architecture as the intersection of various fields they didn't thrive in.
The critic is a pompass a$$. The building is absolutely gorgeous. One question, though... Where is the parking? The renderings show a park surrounding the building. Is parking underground? Or, is the rendering not accurate in this regard?
You evidently haven't been paying attention. People have been living and working onboard the USS Enterprise for years quite happily. The scale of the thing provides the illusion of nice, cosily-familiar, right-angled corners to nearly all the rooms?I just wouldn't want to be the drywall guy!
If there was one foot of drywall in this building I'd be shocked and disappointed.
The architectural critics' viewpoint - the "Great Conversation" by internal experts that any discipline develops in its ongoing effort to define and refine itself. Often misunderstood by outsiders, it is often a memorial to both the need to distinguish and the need to publish, and is typically misunderstood by those not familiar with the internal conventions of the Conversation.
This is a terrific summary of the primary problem with Architectural Theory: in order to really engage in and make meaningful contributions to Architectural discourse, you pretty much need at least a few semesters of Art History and Architectural Theory under your belt, unless you've read enough on your own that you can decrypt essays like this.
Well... I have to agree that tone of article was poor, also written for fellow archs. No concrete(pun intended) suggestions.
In terms of modern 'office' buildings, in the US cash is king, so pretty boring stuff compared to our earlier work. Now look at china and some unique things are being built.
IMO, the only architect that ever 'moved me' was Frank Loyd Wright. He designed some great office buildings. Always over budget, but great stuff. Wow, can you imagine FLW and Steve Jobs working on a project?
As for Apples design.... IMO it seems pretty basic, as Steve undoubtable likes; which is all that really counts right?(Ayn Rand would be proud). From the ground, it will look like any other building but with a curve to it.
Some call it a spaceship... Well if it didn't have a hole in it maybe. IMO looks like a 'glazed' donut.
To me, the building also looks very inefficient. Ok, with 4 levels, you don't need an elevator, but to go from north to south you seed a Segway. A cube or a skyscraper would have been more efficient to get from point a to point b. I also don't understand why apple is already planing campus 3. Look at all the completely unused space around the circle building. Why not just adding something to this structure? Why not just building 6 instead of 4 floors and problem is solved?
It may be a long walk around the diameter of the new building.... but Apple is probably smart enough to place cooperating departments close enough to each other to avoid long walks.
It's gotta be more efficient than walking between buildings.
Look at the old campus... how often do people from building IL3 meet with people all the way over in building B8 anyway? That's a car ride!
It's considered to be a shame when company keeps all these talented, wealthy, and well-educated people cooped-up within the confines of a suburban setting, rather than mixed into a larger group that would greatly benefit from the presence of the type of people that work for a company like Apple.
Here's what you theorists (or theorist apologists) are missing/ignoring. Jobs and his architects didn't design this building for a theoretician's views about what might or might not be good for some mythical idyllic urban society. He designed this building for the needs of its users. There is nothing shameful about designing any product to suit its users.
This, in the face of competing constraints:
- The building is going to be in Cupertino. End of story. Not only because Jobs likes the city and it has been good to him, and Apple, but because that's where the main campus is right now, and there will still necessarily be much travel between buildings. So the closer the two campuses (3 eventually) are, the more efficient (and therefore more green) they are in aggregate. All else equal, of course.
- As others have mentioned, Cupertino is not a metropolitan city. Public transportation is not the main form of travel as it is in a place like NYC, and without a central business core, the argument that Apple could create one is ridiculous. Even with as many employees as Apple has, nothing they do with one or two buildings will change the attitude of the region's culture. We like trees and open space.
- Here's something I didn't see anyone else mention: whatever building design they use, it needs to take security into consideration. High security. Every time an employee enters or leaves a building they are dealing with security. Been there, done that. With the donut design, employees can use the entire area in the middle of the building without "checking out", encouraging them to get sunshine, greenery and fresh air without any hassle. It's large enough to allow many people to be out there without feeling crowded, but also, I believe, to help facilitate the "accidental meetings", as mentioned by since1986 above. It doesn't have to be perfectly circular to achieve this, of course, but it's efficient use of space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Wilkie
He didn't cite a specific example, but he clearly articulated that large workspaces should exist within metropolitan areas bearing greater civic weight.
But is Cupertino actually considered a metropolitan area? Because that's where the building is going to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
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.
Thank you for the splash of reality. Some people actually do like this, but they tend to be young and single, not the majority of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Wilkie
...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?
As far as I understand it, Cupertino doesn't want that kind of growth. What are you suggesting Apple should do? Relocate to another city and lose 1/2 their employees? Try to change the culture of their city?
The best theory stays within the bounds of reality!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Wilkie
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.
Is there any reason to think that we must continue to be an "ever-growing population"? This is the flaw that overshadows the entire conversation. Much better than "vertical cities" (for most of us) would simply be a reduction in birth rate and immigration numbers. Now THAT'S a happy medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlayer
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.
All that. Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
It may be a long walk around the diameter of the new building.... but ... It's gotta be more efficient than walking between buildings.
Look at the old campus... how often do people from building IL3 meet with people all the way over in building B8 anyway? That's a car ride!
And that. Exactly.
This building is genius, for its intended purpose.
Speaking as an architect, campus planner and Apple lover, I completely agree with the his critique. There is nothing more hermetic and isolated than a circle, turning inward upon itself. Unfortunately, the design represents the worst of Apple's culture and values.
This media hack is obviously--like 95% of them--a bleeding Lib. Libs LOVE anything 'urban' and they HATE anything 'suburban.' It's why every Lib's dream is 'high-speed rail' that connects urban centers.
Comments
While I?m far from an expert on the subject I?ve read a little about designing/structuring spaces to enhance particular ways humans interact with the environment.
The comment that this campus is not well integrated within the rest of the city is a valid point, but in all fairness which company really does that with their HQ now that secrecy is paramount to maintaining a competitive advantage?
The design is not bad it?s just emphasising internal rather than external collaboration. The low profile encourages people to walk between floors and office spaces rather than take elevators. And the circular shape encourages outdoor excursions [and exercise] by making them the shortest route between any two points.
The all glass exterior makes this less imposing. Much like Apple products, it doesn?t pretend to ?fit? into the existing landscape, but rather ?invite? you into a new one.
Great points!
I would argue (as others have) that the lack of integration into the urban sprawl/concrete community is a positive thing, providing an example for the rest of the city to emulate/adapt to.
Apple brings out all of these critics due to their high public profile, it's kind of like click bait for print media.
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 evidently haven't been paying attention. People have been living and working onboard the USS Enterprise for years quite happily. The scale of the thing provides the illusion of nice, cosily-familiar, right-angled corners to nearly all the rooms?I just wouldn't want to be the drywall guy!
"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.
One of the more interesting things about rhetoric and the peculiar "wrapper" in which it is ensconced, is that there is often a plurality of perspectives at work in a discussion like this, all having validity within their own framework and all typically either "dissed or dismissed" by adherents within each perspective.
Here there seems to be no less than three different viewpoints (please see below), each with their own internalized dialogue for validation – and perhaps many more, once one removes themselves from the pedestrian nature of this particular query.
1. Your viewpoint - the "Tomato, Tomahto – Potato, Potahto view" (which essentially states that the presenter's entire assumption set is invalid and hence imminently discardable; - btw, I am inclined to agree (if not embrace) the overall logic you present.
2. The presenter's viewpoint - the "It is part of my mundane job that I create a tempest in a teapot by often commenting in a derisive manner about things I ultimately don't really understand" view, underscored by the fact that they buy ink by the barrel.
3. The architectural critics' viewpoint - the "Great Conversation" by internal experts that any discipline develops in its ongoing effort to define and refine itself. Often misunderstood by outsiders, it is often a memorial to both the need to distinguish and the need to publish, and is typically misunderstood by those not familiar with the internal conventions of the Conversation.
There is, of course, other viewpoints that should be mentioned - perhaps Steve Jobs' most notably. Although I have never met him, much less know him - I can pretend to try to understand him given the vast storehouse of anecdotal information available. His view seems to be instinctual - the ability to know - at an atavistic level - what needs to be done (often while flying in the face of the so-called collective wisdom of one's time).
Given Mr. Jobs' track record, it would seem as though Christopher Hawthorne might check his Michael Dell hole card - and conclude that, despite all the tea leaves, bone tosses, and murmurrings from lesser sons of a disgruntled proletariat, on further reflection, he might posit that a round spaceship disconnecting one from the secular rhythms of civil mendacity that must ripple through any metropolitan area is an excellent idea and the overall order of the day.
Of course, I've never been to fond of Architects. They barely can handle basic calculus, let alone a statics course and often are failed fine arts majors who chose architecture as the intersection of various fields they didn't thrive in.
You evidently haven't been paying attention. People have been living and working onboard the USS Enterprise for years quite happily. The scale of the thing provides the illusion of nice, cosily-familiar, right-angled corners to nearly all the rooms?I just wouldn't want to be the drywall guy!
If there was one foot of drywall in this building I'd be shocked and disappointed.
The architectural critics' viewpoint - the "Great Conversation" by internal experts that any discipline develops in its ongoing effort to define and refine itself. Often misunderstood by outsiders, it is often a memorial to both the need to distinguish and the need to publish, and is typically misunderstood by those not familiar with the internal conventions of the Conversation.
This is a terrific summary of the primary problem with Architectural Theory: in order to really engage in and make meaningful contributions to Architectural discourse, you pretty much need at least a few semesters of Art History and Architectural Theory under your belt, unless you've read enough on your own that you can decrypt essays like this.
In terms of modern 'office' buildings, in the US cash is king, so pretty boring stuff compared to our earlier work. Now look at china and some unique things are being built.
IMO, the only architect that ever 'moved me' was Frank Loyd Wright. He designed some great office buildings. Always over budget, but great stuff. Wow, can you imagine FLW and Steve Jobs working on a project?
As for Apples design.... IMO it seems pretty basic, as Steve undoubtable likes; which is all that really counts right?(Ayn Rand would be proud). From the ground, it will look like any other building but with a curve to it.
Some call it a spaceship... Well if it didn't have a hole in it maybe. IMO looks like a 'glazed' donut.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=esrf&l...dius=0.27&z=17
APS:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Advanc...src=6&t=h&z=16
Diamond:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=diamon...15000&t=h&z=16
Yeah we have a many more of those in science facilities....
The concept of it being "green" without adequate public transport access is frankly laughable and unthinkable in the EU...
Those folks, like this clown whining about the spaceship just end up disappearing into obscurity.
They don't actually. The more spectacularly the thing they canned excels, the more they are remembered as the one who canned it.
To me, the building also looks very inefficient. Ok, with 4 levels, you don't need an elevator, but to go from north to south you seed a Segway. A cube or a skyscraper would have been more efficient to get from point a to point b. I also don't understand why apple is already planing campus 3. Look at all the completely unused space around the circle building. Why not just adding something to this structure? Why not just building 6 instead of 4 floors and problem is solved?
It may be a long walk around the diameter of the new building.... but Apple is probably smart enough to place cooperating departments close enough to each other to avoid long walks.
It's gotta be more efficient than walking between buildings.
Look at the old campus... how often do people from building IL3 meet with people all the way over in building B8 anyway? That's a car ride!
Oh, and square, angular buildings are done that way because they are easy (i.e. "cheaper") to build.
No
It's considered to be a shame when company keeps all these talented, wealthy, and well-educated people cooped-up within the confines of a suburban setting, rather than mixed into a larger group that would greatly benefit from the presence of the type of people that work for a company like Apple.
Here's what you theorists (or theorist apologists) are missing/ignoring. Jobs and his architects didn't design this building for a theoretician's views about what might or might not be good for some mythical idyllic urban society. He designed this building for the needs of its users. There is nothing shameful about designing any product to suit its users.
This, in the face of competing constraints:
- The building is going to be in Cupertino. End of story. Not only because Jobs likes the city and it has been good to him, and Apple, but because that's where the main campus is right now, and there will still necessarily be much travel between buildings. So the closer the two campuses (3 eventually) are, the more efficient (and therefore more green) they are in aggregate. All else equal, of course.
- As others have mentioned, Cupertino is not a metropolitan city. Public transportation is not the main form of travel as it is in a place like NYC, and without a central business core, the argument that Apple could create one is ridiculous. Even with as many employees as Apple has, nothing they do with one or two buildings will change the attitude of the region's culture. We like trees and open space.
- Here's something I didn't see anyone else mention: whatever building design they use, it needs to take security into consideration. High security. Every time an employee enters or leaves a building they are dealing with security. Been there, done that. With the donut design, employees can use the entire area in the middle of the building without "checking out", encouraging them to get sunshine, greenery and fresh air without any hassle. It's large enough to allow many people to be out there without feeling crowded, but also, I believe, to help facilitate the "accidental meetings", as mentioned by since1986 above. It doesn't have to be perfectly circular to achieve this, of course, but it's efficient use of space.
He didn't cite a specific example, but he clearly articulated that large workspaces should exist within metropolitan areas bearing greater civic weight.
But is Cupertino actually considered a metropolitan area? Because that's where the building is going to be.
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.
Thank you for the splash of reality. Some people actually do like this, but they tend to be young and single, not the majority of society.
...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?
As far as I understand it, Cupertino doesn't want that kind of growth. What are you suggesting Apple should do? Relocate to another city and lose 1/2 their employees? Try to change the culture of their city?
The best theory stays within the bounds of reality!
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.
Is there any reason to think that we must continue to be an "ever-growing population"? This is the flaw that overshadows the entire conversation. Much better than "vertical cities" (for most of us) would simply be a reduction in birth rate and immigration numbers. Now THAT'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.
All that. Thank you.
It may be a long walk around the diameter of the new building.... but ... It's gotta be more efficient than walking between buildings.
Look at the old campus... how often do people from building IL3 meet with people all the way over in building B8 anyway? That's a car ride!
And that. Exactly.
This building is genius, for its intended purpose.