I would of thought that Apple would have a high tech solution built into the roof like infrared heaters that melt the snow before it accumulates? Oh well...
For people who think that Apple had nefarious intent with the battery / CPU slow-down situation, I suggest you read this story and then consider the possibility that sometimes Apple can just be kind of insular and dumb.
I would think the architectural firm that designed this building is the dumb one. Apple approves the final design, but it's up to the architects and engineers to first design the darn building in the first place and make sure everything is factored in.
This seems pretty normal to me, what’s the problem? If you live in a cold climate falling ice is something you have to deal with.
So other stores in Chicago have similar signs? That’s interesting because I live in Minnesota and no retail stores I go to caution me to watch for falling snow or ice.
So who were these signs made for? Must be apple, right? Because they invented roof ice?
A software update for falling retail store ice will be issued in early 2018 and the price of playing dodge the avalanche will be reduced from $79 to $29.
Apple designed the store according to the strictest architectural standards so the roof is designed to naturally remove the ice in the swiftest manner possible making best use of the forces of nature called gravity.
This seems pretty normal to me, what’s the problem? If you live in a cold climate falling ice is something you have to deal with.
So other stores in Chicago have similar signs? That’s interesting because I live in Minnesota and no retail stores I go to caution me to watch for falling snow or ice.
Minneapolis here. We have a downtown full of tall buildings with very little falling ice problem. It’s something that is designed for. Though, sometimes an out-of-state company tries something more California-designed and fails. See the AMC theater at Rosedale mall with their outdoor ticket windows facing a plaza. Poor ticket takers are freezing.
This is absolutely a non-story. Warning signs and precautionary roped off areas are (and have been) incredibly common around the Chicago area during the winter, almost anywhere where there is a roof and heavy pedestrian traffic. Here in Chicago, we call this problem “winter”.
This seems pretty normal to me, what’s the problem? If you live in a cold climate falling ice is something you have to deal with.
So other stores in Chicago have similar signs? That’s interesting because I live in Minnesota and no retail stores I go to caution me to watch for falling snow or ice.
I used to work downtown Chicago (found new job as they announced this new building... was only across the street). I would walk or ride my bike from Ogilve station and several buildings would put signs out to watch for falling ice. Primarily saw it in front of taller buildings. So this problem is not unique to Apple. On a few occasions I saw the ice/snow fall from the buildings and hit people. Wasn’t life threatening blows, but it did look like it smarts.
This seems pretty normal to me, what’s the problem? If you live in a cold climate falling ice is something you have to deal with.
So other stores in Chicago have similar signs? That’s interesting because I live in Minnesota and no retail stores I go to caution me to watch for falling snow or ice.
It’s standard CYA in Chicago for the past 15 years or so ever since a woman was unfortunately killed by ice that fell from a skyscraper. The signs are all over the place after every snowstorm.
This is absolutely a non-story. Warning signs and precautionary roped off areas are (and have been) incredibly common around the Chicago area during the winter, almost anywhere where there is a roof and heavy pedestrian traffic. Here in Chicago, we call this problem “winter”.
Yes, but no.
Yes, there are signs like that all over Chicago in the winter. But no, they are not for snow and ice falling off the roofs of buildings. Every person here who has stated or implied that need to rethink their conclusions.
Those signs are because of the snow and ice that accumulates on the facades (ie, the sides, window frames, and architectural elements) of the buildings. Not the roofs (at least not the flat roofs of larger buildings which is what we are talking about here). Chicago has only gotten a few inches of snow so far this winter. How many of these signs are you seeing around other than the Apple Store? I've seen none on my 15 minute daily walk across the Loop each morning and afternoon. If the Apple Store is already having this problem after such light snow, what on Earth are they going to do when it really snows?!?
Absolutely an architectural design failure. And a failure of the city to not catch this when they reviewed the building permit (too many $$ in their eyes, perhaps). Living and working in this city you come to expect this when walking past the high-rise building during the deep winter and especially the spring thaw when all the accumulated ice and snow starts melting and detaching from the sides of the buildings. You wouldn't expect this from a relatively low building like the Apple Store and so early in the winter when there as been very little snow.
This seems pretty normal to me, what’s the problem? If you live in a cold climate falling ice is something you have to deal with.
So other stores in Chicago have similar signs? That’s interesting because I live in Minnesota and no retail stores I go to caution me to watch for falling snow or ice.
Perhaps not retail, but plenty of other buildings such as the Minneapolis Library have had similar issues. You also have trouble keeping panels attached to the billion dollar Stadium. How embarrassing that will be if that occurs during the Super Bowl.
Livre in the snow for much of my life. Love it. In SoCal now. Miss having the snow all around. Have to visit the mountains to experience it.
But this whole thing is ridiculous.
Icicles exist regardless of roof shape. A flat roof is actually safer where falling snow and ice is concerned. The angled roofs slough off heavy packed snow and ice all the time. Sounds like bombs going off in the distance. And yes, it can kill you. I'd be more comfortable near a flat roof with snow on it than the wrong side of an angled one.
Apple is simply taking great precaution here. Good on them.
Let me know if the flat flat roof ever caved in under the weight of packed snow and ice. Because that's the only time this will actually be newsworthy.
Maybe “The Ive” can design super sleek gutters carved out of an aluminum block. When I close my eyes I can almost hear is silky smooth voice announcing that it’s “unapologetically gutter shaped - square - but with ever so slightly rounded corners”.
For people who think that Apple had nefarious intent with the battery / CPU slow-down situation, I suggest you read this story and then consider the possibility that sometimes Apple can just be kind of insular and dumb.
I would think the architectural firm that designed this building is the dumb one. Apple approves the final design, but it's up to the architects and engineers to first design the darn building in the first place and make sure everything is factored in.
This is not Apple's fault.
I think the problem here is the same as it always is. Folk will look at the problem then will head for the cause (a design fault) that will cost the most to fix because … well … Apple.
Look at what the layman says the problem is: the roof is not designed to handle snow. Now, looking at the picture, the roof is flat, so you're not going to get large snow slides falling off onto the people below. So an engineer might say that the roof is handling the snow just fine.
An engineer might look at the roof and say the problem is that large icicles are forming. He will then look to find out why. Meanwhile the layperson has already decided that the solution to the problem is to heat the roof. Yes, that'll stop the icicles forming, but the engineer will probably think that is an inefficient way to deal with the problem because it still hasn't looked at the cause of the icicle formation, which is the rapid thawing and refreezing of the snow.
So, paradoxically, the engineer might decide that the solution is not to heat the roof, but to keep it cooler so that the snow doesn't melt and refreeze so quickly.
So while I think it's possible that the architects and/or engineers didn't account for something, I think its unlikely that they didn't account for the weather conditions in Chicago.
So what else could have gone wrong? Not sure. It could be that the store is a lot warmer than they thought it would, possibly because they didn't account for the amount of foot traffic in cold weather. It could be that the there's not enough insulation in the roof to prevent it heating up so fast. The point is, just saying the problem is snow is not really helpful.
And I just reckon that saying the architects didn't account for snow is a bit naive.
For people who think that Apple had nefarious intent with the battery / CPU slow-down situation, I suggest you read this story and then consider the possibility that sometimes Apple can just be kind of insular and dumb.
With this, not adding gutters and/or snow deflectors to the roof, Apple was dumb. With BatteryGate, they were not. They created a minor problem (a minor slow down) to avoid a major problem for their customers: unreliable iPhones that would shut down at unpredictable moments and not restart until put on a charger. Yes, they could have been more transparent about it, but they did the smart thing, not the dumb thing.
Comments
My guess is that the architects were British, so they naturally assumed that the whole of Chicago would shut down after a centimetre of snowfall.
Apple designed the store according to the strictest architectural standards so the roof is designed to naturally remove the ice in the swiftest manner possible making best use of the forces of nature called gravity.
Yes, there are signs like that all over Chicago in the winter. But no, they are not for snow and ice falling off the roofs of buildings. Every person here who has stated or implied that need to rethink their conclusions.
Those signs are because of the snow and ice that accumulates on the facades (ie, the sides, window frames, and architectural elements) of the buildings. Not the roofs (at least not the flat roofs of larger buildings which is what we are talking about here). Chicago has only gotten a few inches of snow so far this winter. How many of these signs are you seeing around other than the Apple Store? I've seen none on my 15 minute daily walk across the Loop each morning and afternoon. If the Apple Store is already having this problem after such light snow, what on Earth are they going to do when it really snows?!?
Absolutely an architectural design failure. And a failure of the city to not catch this when they reviewed the building permit (too many $$ in their eyes, perhaps). Living and working in this city you come to expect this when walking past the high-rise building during the deep winter and especially the spring thaw when all the accumulated ice and snow starts melting and detaching from the sides of the buildings. You wouldn't expect this from a relatively low building like the Apple Store and so early in the winter when there as been very little snow.
But this whole thing is ridiculous.
Icicles exist regardless of roof shape. A flat roof is actually safer where falling snow and ice is concerned. The angled roofs slough off heavy packed snow and ice all the time. Sounds like bombs going off in the distance. And yes, it can kill you. I'd be more comfortable near a flat roof with snow on it than the wrong side of an angled one.
Apple is simply taking great precaution here. Good on them.
Let me know if the flat flat roof ever caved in under the weight of packed snow and ice. Because that's the only time this will actually be newsworthy.
I think the problem here is the same as it always is. Folk will look at the problem then will head for the cause (a design fault) that will cost the most to fix because … well … Apple.
Look at what the layman says the problem is: the roof is not designed to handle snow. Now, looking at the picture, the roof is flat, so you're not going to get large snow slides falling off onto the people below. So an engineer might say that the roof is handling the snow just fine.
An engineer might look at the roof and say the problem is that large icicles are forming. He will then look to find out why. Meanwhile the layperson has already decided that the solution to the problem is to heat the roof. Yes, that'll stop the icicles forming, but the engineer will probably think that is an inefficient way to deal with the problem because it still hasn't looked at the cause of the icicle formation, which is the rapid thawing and refreezing of the snow.
So, paradoxically, the engineer might decide that the solution is not to heat the roof, but to keep it cooler so that the snow doesn't melt and refreeze so quickly.
So while I think it's possible that the architects and/or engineers didn't account for something, I think its unlikely that they didn't account for the weather conditions in Chicago.
So what else could have gone wrong? Not sure. It could be that the store is a lot warmer than they thought it would, possibly because they didn't account for the amount of foot traffic in cold weather. It could be that the there's not enough insulation in the roof to prevent it heating up so fast. The point is, just saying the problem is snow is not really helpful.
And I just reckon that saying the architects didn't account for snow is a bit naive.
With BatteryGate, they were not. They created a minor problem (a minor slow down) to avoid a major problem for their customers: unreliable iPhones that would shut down at unpredictable moments and not restart until put on a charger. Yes, they could have been more transparent about it, but they did the smart thing, not the dumb thing.