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.
Uh, what, freedom of the press is a "joke"? Guess you're reading some other Constitution in which property rights are enshrined but the right to free speech, which is more important than any other right in ensuring democracy, is omitted.
Apple may build whatever moronic or genius building they want (as long as it's legal).
Goldberger and other critics may write whatever moronic or genius treatise they want on corporate architecture, and you and Apple are free not to listen, or invite the critic "to the party", as they see fit.
That dual right is what is supposed to define America/democracy. Take away either side and you have some other political/cultural system, take your pick.
I can't even find his exact criticisms even after reading the source article.
His only argument seems to be that it "lacks human scale" and then throws in some vague references to the pentagon. That's just a crap criticism given the information we have (almost none).
In fact he deduced "no human scale" from the architectural renderings none of which (among those published) showed the interior - which is where human scale would really matter.
I think the current "Infinite Loop" campus has some of the best=looking buildings around...
The Infinite Loop site itself started out in the mid-70s as Four-Phase Systems headquarters. (They're long gone, but were a venture by ex-Fairchild people to make the first all-LSI minicomputer systems.)
It's been tweaked since then, but started out with pretty good usability, including features like tapping into the AC system to preheat water fed into the water heaters for the bathrooms. Nice for the time.
I worked there when I started out as a tech writer, going across the street about 18 months later to join Apple for a few years.
I agree. However, this building is not unique and it's certainly not modern. At least not in the sense I assume you meant "modern" (i.e. current). Not by a LONG shot. It's aesthetic is more closely aligned with the failed utopian visions of the early modernists like Le Corbusier from 100 year ago.
Since all utopian visions are essentially doomed to failure, your phrase "failed utopian visions" is a res ipsa loquitur, and how in the world do you tie in that to the architectural rendering of the new campus? You seem to be hung up on the form and not the substance of the thing. Try again, and this time bring us some support for your statement. After all, we obviously don't have the deep background and experience in architecture your statements claim for you.
I am not sure what he is upset about either. I would like to know if you believe this critic raised valid concerns. If he did, what were they? I read it twice now and can't find any.
I didn't really look at his criticisms in detail but my point is that any knowledgable critic should be allowed to voice his concerns. Architecture is centred around aesthetics and functionality in a geographical / social context. That leaves a lot of room for deep debate and differing views.
Personally? The 'spaceship' certainly looks impressive on paper. It also looks ominous and 'blank faced', almost threatening, like a futuristic closed fortress. It doesn't appear to have any nooks and crannies outdoors. Nooks and crannies can be created through landscaping. Maybe an Apple Village would have been a better solution in the long term... or just nicer for the people working there. I don't know. But the Spaceship is very Jobsian, so it makes sense. But often great minds need tempering through imposed limitations to be truly great. Once they rise above that and can freely unleash their 'vision' unhindered, it becomes bigger, grander, more impressive, but less great. So, I don't know. I am seduced by it at the moment on a purely visual level.
OMFG. Seriously? Look, Steve Jobs has created some amazing products but for pete's sake... he's not an architect. Nor should he try to be one. He should stick with what he knows. This building is a disaster.
Do you think Steve Jobs' designed the building himself?
You don't think that maybe, just maybe, Apple hired a competent architectural design firm to help out a little bit?
You are going to have to say a little more than "this building is a disaster" if you want us to believe it. What exactly is wrong with it? And don't say "it looks like a doughnut, because, well, unless you are 100 feet tall, you aren't exactly going to notice.
A building in a public space can (and maybe should) be measured by how it "fits" (which could be: in how far it harmonizes or provokes).
This building is in a private space and it exposes its inhabitants - everybody is visible and you can look into it from every angle. How much more "human" can a building get? Yes, it is not the Taj Mahal, and not remotely that beautiful - but how "human" is a tomb? It is no castle - nobody is hiding in there, but why should they? It is a functional building that transforms its space into something with a different meaning. According to D. Byrne, that is what "humans do".
There's something odd about placing the words parking and spaceship in the same sentence.
It would be even odder to double-park a spaceship. Where would you put the ticket? Would it be considered double parking only if it were next to the first spaceship? What if it were above?
Actually, it's part MY money -- the money belongs to the shareholders...
The new campus itself is fine -- I think others are correct that it will be a modern classic. From the air, it's a sort of ugly to me, but from the side views, I like it.
The only concern I have is to make sure that Apple is spending money in the places that have the highest return.
Defensive much? Often critics raise valid and interesting points. Architecture is a broad subject and I see nothing worn with critics voicing their opinion here. Ambitious projects like this are often controversial. And I don't see what this has to do with it being America, and whether it is Apple's money or not. In fact, I really don't know why you are so upset about this.
And often they are talking out of their ass, case in point:
Elizabeth Warren running for the Senate in Massachusetts trying for the Democrat seat to run against Scott Brown. This is a law professor at Harvard. She was at Rutgers. She has had numerous sources of income. At one time I remember asking, "I wonder how many pensions this woman has," but she's not poor, and she is the quintessential example of what she's talking about. She's never produced anything but a bunch of confused minds. She's never produced anything but skulls full of mush. She hasn't taught anybody anything that's the truth. She hasn't produced a product, she hasn't performed a worthwhile service, and she's done pretty well. She earns six figures. In Obama's parlance, she's a "millionaire and billionaire" with a corporate jet. Here's what she said earlier this month.
WARREN: I hear all this, "You know, well, this is class warfare. This is whatever." No! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody! You built a factory out there? Good for you! But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You, uh, were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did.
This is the type of idiots in Congress now. We don't need any more so says this "non-critic"!
A prominent architecture critic has panned Apple's plans for its new Cupertino, Calif., campus, suggesting it is a "wildly ambitious, over-the-top headquarters" out of sync with the company's beautiful and functional products.
These critics said the same thing about the Stata Center at MIT.
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.
Were you the architect or something? Your post makes it sound like you were personally attacked. Why so angry?
As for the critic, he makes some valid points. But as a critic, they are his opinions. As you said, it's still America. People are allowed to have opinions still... I hope.
Defensive much? Often critics raise valid and interesting points. Architecture is a broad subject and I see nothing worn with critics voicing their opinion here. Ambitious projects like this are often controversial. And I don't see what this has to do with it being America, and whether it is Apple's money or not. In fact, I really don't know why you are so upset about this.
Agreed...
There are some thoughtful criticisms based on initial design. If Apple were smart (and they are) they will incorporate those and fix any they feel might actually be valid.
In fact, Apple is probably thrilled about this. How many other companies get such wide ranging free advice for their designs?
Ironic that he praises the iPad, given the avalanche of criticism the iPad received when it was first announced. But now it's "obvious" to everyone how great the iPad is.
I wonder what will be "obvious" about the new apple HQ 5 years after it's built.
OMFG. Seriously? Look, Steve Jobs has created some amazing products but for pete's sake... he's not an architect. Nor should he try to be one. He should stick with what he knows. This building is a disaster.
Most architects design garbage and display an amazing arrogance for the people they design it for. They make the mistake many people that study do to confuse the diploma they get with talent for the field of study and in this case having good taste.
Comments
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.
Uh, what, freedom of the press is a "joke"? Guess you're reading some other Constitution in which property rights are enshrined but the right to free speech, which is more important than any other right in ensuring democracy, is omitted.
Apple may build whatever moronic or genius building they want (as long as it's legal).
Goldberger and other critics may write whatever moronic or genius treatise they want on corporate architecture, and you and Apple are free not to listen, or invite the critic "to the party", as they see fit.
That dual right is what is supposed to define America/democracy. Take away either side and you have some other political/cultural system, take your pick.
I can't even find his exact criticisms even after reading the source article.
His only argument seems to be that it "lacks human scale" and then throws in some vague references to the pentagon. That's just a crap criticism given the information we have (almost none).
In fact he deduced "no human scale" from the architectural renderings none of which (among those published) showed the interior - which is where human scale would really matter.
I think the current "Infinite Loop" campus has some of the best=looking buildings around...
The Infinite Loop site itself started out in the mid-70s as Four-Phase Systems headquarters. (They're long gone, but were a venture by ex-Fairchild people to make the first all-LSI minicomputer systems.)
It's been tweaked since then, but started out with pretty good usability, including features like tapping into the AC system to preheat water fed into the water heaters for the bathrooms. Nice for the time.
I worked there when I started out as a tech writer, going across the street about 18 months later to join Apple for a few years.
I've always felt Howard Roark to be Steve Jobs.
I agree. However, this building is not unique and it's certainly not modern. At least not in the sense I assume you meant "modern" (i.e. current). Not by a LONG shot. It's aesthetic is more closely aligned with the failed utopian visions of the early modernists like Le Corbusier from 100 year ago.
Since all utopian visions are essentially doomed to failure, your phrase "failed utopian visions" is a res ipsa loquitur, and how in the world do you tie in that to the architectural rendering of the new campus? You seem to be hung up on the form and not the substance of the thing. Try again, and this time bring us some support for your statement. After all, we obviously don't have the deep background and experience in architecture your statements claim for you.
I am not sure what he is upset about either. I would like to know if you believe this critic raised valid concerns. If he did, what were they? I read it twice now and can't find any.
I didn't really look at his criticisms in detail but my point is that any knowledgable critic should be allowed to voice his concerns. Architecture is centred around aesthetics and functionality in a geographical / social context. That leaves a lot of room for deep debate and differing views.
Personally? The 'spaceship' certainly looks impressive on paper. It also looks ominous and 'blank faced', almost threatening, like a futuristic closed fortress. It doesn't appear to have any nooks and crannies outdoors. Nooks and crannies can be created through landscaping. Maybe an Apple Village would have been a better solution in the long term... or just nicer for the people working there. I don't know. But the Spaceship is very Jobsian, so it makes sense. But often great minds need tempering through imposed limitations to be truly great. Once they rise above that and can freely unleash their 'vision' unhindered, it becomes bigger, grander, more impressive, but less great. So, I don't know. I am seduced by it at the moment on a purely visual level.
Everyone who ever broke from the norm and successfully created something different, received similar criticism along the way.
OMFG. Seriously? Look, Steve Jobs has created some amazing products but for pete's sake... he's not an architect. Nor should he try to be one. He should stick with what he knows. This building is a disaster.
Do you think Steve Jobs' designed the building himself?
You don't think that maybe, just maybe, Apple hired a competent architectural design firm to help out a little bit?
You are going to have to say a little more than "this building is a disaster" if you want us to believe it. What exactly is wrong with it? And don't say "it looks like a doughnut, because, well, unless you are 100 feet tall, you aren't exactly going to notice.
This building is in a private space and it exposes its inhabitants - everybody is visible and you can look into it from every angle. How much more "human" can a building get? Yes, it is not the Taj Mahal, and not remotely that beautiful - but how "human" is a tomb? It is no castle - nobody is hiding in there, but why should they? It is a functional building that transforms its space into something with a different meaning. According to D. Byrne, that is what "humans do".
Critics of the new Apple campus need to get a life. It is not a commercial Apple product. It's a building.
Yeah, this is absurd. The slavish worship of Apple by fanboys is beyond parody. Exhibit A: this thread LOL....
There's something odd about placing the words parking and spaceship in the same sentence.
It would be even odder to double-park a spaceship. Where would you put the ticket? Would it be considered double parking only if it were next to the first spaceship? What if it were above?
IT'S THEIR MONEY....
Actually, it's part MY money -- the money belongs to the shareholders...
The new campus itself is fine -- I think others are correct that it will be a modern classic. From the air, it's a sort of ugly to me, but from the side views, I like it.
The only concern I have is to make sure that Apple is spending money in the places that have the highest return.
Defensive much? Often critics raise valid and interesting points. Architecture is a broad subject and I see nothing worn with critics voicing their opinion here. Ambitious projects like this are often controversial. And I don't see what this has to do with it being America, and whether it is Apple's money or not. In fact, I really don't know why you are so upset about this.
And often they are talking out of their ass, case in point:
Elizabeth Warren running for the Senate in Massachusetts trying for the Democrat seat to run against Scott Brown. This is a law professor at Harvard. She was at Rutgers. She has had numerous sources of income. At one time I remember asking, "I wonder how many pensions this woman has," but she's not poor, and she is the quintessential example of what she's talking about. She's never produced anything but a bunch of confused minds. She's never produced anything but skulls full of mush. She hasn't taught anybody anything that's the truth. She hasn't produced a product, she hasn't performed a worthwhile service, and she's done pretty well. She earns six figures. In Obama's parlance, she's a "millionaire and billionaire" with a corporate jet. Here's what she said earlier this month.
WARREN: I hear all this, "You know, well, this is class warfare. This is whatever." No! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody! You built a factory out there? Good for you! But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You, uh, were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did.
This is the type of idiots in Congress now. We don't need any more so says this "non-critic"!
/
/
/
A prominent architecture critic has panned Apple's plans for its new Cupertino, Calif., campus, suggesting it is a "wildly ambitious, over-the-top headquarters" out of sync with the company's beautiful and functional products.
These critics said the same thing about the Stata Center at MIT.
Didn't stop them from building it.
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.
Were you the architect or something? Your post makes it sound like you were personally attacked. Why so angry?
As for the critic, he makes some valid points. But as a critic, they are his opinions. As you said, it's still America. People are allowed to have opinions still... I hope.
Defensive much? Often critics raise valid and interesting points. Architecture is a broad subject and I see nothing worn with critics voicing their opinion here. Ambitious projects like this are often controversial. And I don't see what this has to do with it being America, and whether it is Apple's money or not. In fact, I really don't know why you are so upset about this.
Agreed...
There are some thoughtful criticisms based on initial design. If Apple were smart (and they are) they will incorporate those and fix any they feel might actually be valid.
In fact, Apple is probably thrilled about this. How many other companies get such wide ranging free advice for their designs?
These critics said the same thing about the Stata Center at MIT.
Didn't stop them from building it.
I'd never seen that before. It looks pretty awful and I don't care who made it or designed it. It looks like the aftermath of an earthquake.
I wonder what will be "obvious" about the new apple HQ 5 years after it's built.
OMFG. Seriously? Look, Steve Jobs has created some amazing products but for pete's sake... he's not an architect. Nor should he try to be one. He should stick with what he knows. This building is a disaster.
Most architects design garbage and display an amazing arrogance for the people they design it for. They make the mistake many people that study do to confuse the diploma they get with talent for the field of study and in this case having good taste.
J.