Apple submits updated renderings, plans for Cupertino spaceship campus

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    The original post has a video of the proceedings at the Cupertino City Council meet. It describes a lot of the ideas which were planned out, initially.
  • Reply 22 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thecynicwithin View Post


    For all of Apple's talk of sustainability they seem to have no interest in integrating their campus with the surrounding community. It may be a secrecy thing, or it may be that they aren't genuinely interested in the concepts unless there's a product to market and sell. Regardless, it's a bit sad that they would forgo the opportunity to create something outsiders could also appreciate.



    Ah, I was wondering when the "human scale" nonsense would crop up.
  • Reply 23 of 38
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Feynman View Post


    My thoughts exactly. I miss you so much Steve.



    I'm sure that Steve is listening to you and cares about you.
  • Reply 24 of 38
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post


    I'm sure that Steve is listening to you and cares about you.



    Your trolling is getting our of hand.
  • Reply 25 of 38
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thecynicwithin View Post


    For all of Apple's talk of sustainability they seem to have no interest in integrating their campus with the surrounding community. It may be a secrecy thing, or it may be that they aren't genuinely interested in the concepts unless there's a product to market and sell. Regardless, it's a bit sad that they would forgo the opportunity to create something outsiders could also appreciate.



    I don't really know what you're talking about - the campus will have trees all around, lots of green, making it quieter for the neighbors. That's a lot better than being "integrated" right next to it.
  • Reply 26 of 38
    This argument is perfectly indicative of Apple vs. any other company. Because it's different, because it's not a big square or rectangle, because it's unusual, critics don't like it. I know many a quadrilateral building that looks damn ugly, has poor use of space, and/or is not "user friendly." Geometry bigots!
  • Reply 27 of 38
    If you look at page 7 of the A111104 document, it clearly shows that yes, they are putting a few solar panels on the roof.....



    ....and by a few (provided I counted and did the math correctly) I mean there'll be approx 20,160 of them.



    The 6 regular office sections have 1392 on the outside and 1128 on the inside.



    The area over the dining area is a little different, but I visually estimate they number to be close to the same.
  • Reply 28 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MikeP View Post


    Given its size, I'd expect parking to be in several lots around the building, but i see only a large lot away from the building. Perhaps they have a PRT (personal rapid transit) system or shuttles? I also hope the roof will have solar power generation.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


    Underground, I believe.



    Actually the parking on the bottom of the image (the parallelograms) is a large multi-story parking structure - it's one aspect of the design that's generated at least some critiques in the community; some people fear the parking structure will make a long "wall" along the 280. (Not to mention, make it impossible to see the spaceship from the freeway.)
  • Reply 29 of 38
    I don't hate the new design, but as my earlier posts show I'm not a huge fan either; I think Apple could have done something a lot better. But in the end it's Apple's land and Apple's money.



    Regardless, I'm definitely not convinced that the circle shape is going to be very workable in practice - for instance, take a look at the pedestrian circulation plans; there's a sidewalk around the outside of the building. Why would anyone walk around the outside (i.e., take a longer path) than enter the building and cut through a "slice", or at least walk an interior circle that's shorter than the exterior walk? I mean, if you're coming up from the parking lot at "6 o'clock" and work at "2 o'clock", walking around the exterior is inefficient.
  • Reply 30 of 38
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post


    Actually the parking on the bottom of the image (the parallelograms) is a large multi-story parking structure - it's one aspect of the design that's generated at least some critiques in the community; some people fear the parking structure will make a long "wall" along the 280. (Not to mention, make it impossible to see the spaceship from the freeway.)



    So what is visible from the freeway now? I don't remember much great scenery along there, but it's been a while since I passed through.



    Here in L.A., many freeways are getting walls in order to quiet things down for the neighborhoods. I suspect this might be the thinking behind the parking structures, if they go much above the freeway banks. They will cut down noise for the Arcadia within, particularly from the sound of pileups caused by tourists rubbernecking to see the "spaceship." Actually, I seem to remember the freeway is sunk below street level there, please correct me if it's not so.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post


    I don't hate the new design, but as my earlier posts show I'm not a huge fan either; I think Apple could have done something a lot better. But in the end it's Apple's land and Apple's money.



    Regardless, I'm definitely not convinced that the circle shape is going to be very workable in practice - for instance, take a look at the pedestrian circulation plans; there's a sidewalk around the outside of the building. Why would anyone walk around the outside (i.e., take a longer path) than enter the building and cut through a "slice", or at least walk an interior circle that's shorter than the exterior walk? I mean, if you're coming up from the parking lot at "6 o'clock" and work at "2 o'clock", walking around the exterior is inefficient.



    You must have a better idea then, c'mon let us have it. The circle is "not workable"? What's a better shape? Hint: don't give us anything rectilinear, because then you have corners, and corners waste space. It's where you put brooms and flagpoles when you're not using them. Rectilinear is now officially on the short list for obsolescence, thank Jobs.



    The perimeter walk will be the way you get your exercise and clear your head, though I imagine people will need less head-clearing when they work in this building.
  • Reply 31 of 38
    rbryanhrbryanh Posts: 263member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    1) I ike the additional walking paths but think they still need more to utilize the open space.



    2) I wonder if the move from a white roof to a grey roof is for thermal water-heating and/or solar paneling.



    The notion that space must always be somehow utilized is what leads to the vast, barren office plazas that pockmark American downtowns like scars. The notion that "empty" space isn't good for anything is dubious at best, crippling at worst. Treating structures as a frame for empty space rather than dropping a few afterthought benches into the sterile desert surrounding a monolith has the potential to create both beauty and utility.



    We aren't machines, and treating human beings as components to be plugged into a 30-story server has never improved the quality of life of anyone, anywhere.
  • Reply 32 of 38
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post


    The notion that space must always be somehow utilized is what leads to the vast, barren office plazas that pockmark American downtowns like scars. The notion that "empty" space isn't good for anything is dubious at best, crippling at worst. Treating structures as a frame for empty space rather than dropping a few afterthought benches into the sterile desert surrounding a monolith has the potential to create both beauty and utility.



    We aren't machines, and treating human beings as components to be plugged into a 30-story server has never improved the quality of life of anyone, anywhere.



    Your'e reading too much into my post. I don't expect the space to be utilized by some office plazas. Based on the scale I think some more paths should be created to allow for more trails throughout the open space.
  • Reply 33 of 38
    rbryanhrbryanh Posts: 263member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post


    I don't hate the new design, but as my earlier posts show I'm not a huge fan either; I think Apple could have done something a lot better. But in the end it's Apple's land and Apple's money.



    Regardless, I'm definitely not convinced that the circle shape is going to be very workable in practice - for instance, take a look at the pedestrian circulation plans; there's a sidewalk around the outside of the building. Why would anyone walk around the outside (i.e., take a longer path) than enter the building and cut through a "slice", or at least walk an interior circle that's shorter than the exterior walk? I mean, if you're coming up from the parking lot at "6 o'clock" and work at "2 o'clock", walking around the exterior is inefficient.



    I've a copy of an interesting study on my desk. It compares the time people were willing to spend searching for the parking space closest to a supermarket to their cardiovascular health. The researchers actually set up a conning tower in the parking lot, used cameras and software to track the paths of incoming cars, and offered drivers $25 to take a cardio stress test.



    Predictably, they found that fit people were likely to part in the first open space they encountered, whereas the morbidly obese were prone to driving in circles for 10 minutes in hopes of finding a spot 20 feet closer to the door. Unhealthy people were far more likely to misuse handicapped spaces, and almost more likely to cause fender benders in their desire to be as sedentary as possible.



    Given that, I think an ideal environment might deliberately put pleasant vistas, changes in light, air, & scene, chance encounters, cold drinks, and a half mile walk between every individual and the nearest bathroom. Sitting still is bad for individuals and bad for society. It leads to ugliness, self loathing, ill health, poor decisions, needless expense, and a shortened lifespan. In short, reducing the movement of human bodies leads to human misery.
  • Reply 34 of 38
    jonoromjonorom Posts: 293member
    The most notable change to the design of the main building are the enormous new horizontal sunshades/fins that were added at each floor line. These new fins will help shade all of those miles of glass curtainwall from direct sun. In the earlier design there would have been much more solar gain, which would have caused substantially more energy to be expended to cool the building. There also would have been lots of glare and direct sunshine on the occupants. This revised design is an improvement and a shift towards a more sustainable architecture.



    The horizontal fins will also help break up the "mile-long wall of detail-less glass" appearance that I panned on this site previously. I am glad to see that Lord Norman Foster reads AppleInsider!



    I wonder if Steve would have allowed the perfect, sleek objectification of the original design to be compromised in this way. I suspect not.
  • Reply 35 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post


    I'm sure that Steve is listening to you and cares about you.



    How? People stop listening or caring or for that matter doing ANYTHING when their life terminates. Never heard of any exceptions to this rule.
  • Reply 36 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post


    I don't hate the new design, but as my earlier posts show I'm not a huge fan either; I think Apple could have done something a lot better. But in the end it's Apple's land and Apple's money.



    Regardless, I'm definitely not convinced that the circle shape is going to be very workable in practice[...].



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


    You must have a better idea then, c'mon let us have it. The circle is "not workable"? What's a better shape? Hint: don't give us anything rectilinear, because then you have corners, and corners waste space. It's where you put brooms and flagpoles when you're not using them. Rectilinear is now officially on the short list for obsolescence, thank Jobs.



    Wow, get testy much? First, I clearly acknowledged that it's Apple's land and money to do with what they want. Second, I'm far from the first person to observe that it could be a real pain in the a** to have to go around the circle for inter-office interactions.



    But what really is making me laugh out loud is your assertion that somehow this one circular building is going to make all other building shapes obsolete. Like there haven't been circular buildings before (for, oh, 2000 years - ever heard of the Pantheon in Rome?)... as it happens, our property system is rife with right angles and straight lines; for most companies, designing anything other than a rectilinear building on a rectilinear parcel is an inefficient waste of space. And that's going to continue to be the case, even after Apple's spaceship is built.
  • Reply 37 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post


    I've a copy of an interesting study on my desk. It compares the time people were willing to spend searching for the parking space closest to a supermarket to their cardiovascular health. The researchers actually set up a conning tower in the parking lot, used cameras and software to track the paths of incoming cars, and offered drivers $25 to take a cardio stress test.



    Predictably, they found that fit people were likely to part in the first open space they encountered, whereas the morbidly obese were prone to driving in circles for 10 minutes in hopes of finding a spot 20 feet closer to the door. Unhealthy people were far more likely to misuse handicapped spaces, and almost more likely to cause fender benders in their desire to be as sedentary as possible.



    Given that, I think an ideal environment might deliberately put pleasant vistas, changes in light, air, & scene, chance encounters, cold drinks, and a half mile walk between every individual and the nearest bathroom. Sitting still is bad for individuals and bad for society. It leads to ugliness, self loathing, ill health, poor decisions, needless expense, and a shortened lifespan. In short, reducing the movement of human bodies leads to human misery.



    I don't disagree with any of that. (And FWIW, I tend to park wherever there's space and hoof it to the store, rather than waste time and gas circling endlessly.) But these arguments do not, by themselves, inherently support the circle design or the notion that people will circumnavigate the exterior of the building. I.e., there are a lot of ways to design a healthy building, and this proposal may, or may not, be a good implementation.
  • Reply 38 of 38
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,721member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    Interesting that the critics hate the building that will become an instant icon and admired around the world.



    Ha. Indeed. Where have we seen this movie before!?
Sign In or Register to comment.