Apple Campus 2 Qualifies for Expedited Environmental Review

[flipperfeet]

Everything I've said could be said about a lot large developments, which doesn't make it wrong. In fact all of that prior experience tells us that it's right.

I don't need to give credit. This is a well known and very deeply studied issue, not an idea I've come up entirely on my own. Understand that this concept came from Steve Jobs, who despite his other talents was not an architect. This building will properly be seen as a monument to him, which I suspect was the idea. I doubt very much that this concept would have been suggested by any architect because of all the inherent problems it creates.

I guess my point here is that while many of your assertions may in the end be validated, the fifteen basically identical architectural-glass covered block buildings that make up the Cisco Campus, and the six identical cylindrical architectural glass towers that make up the Oracle campus share the same climate and very similar employee density and don't suffer from these problems on a day-to-day basis. (I have been on both).

Granted Jobs was well known for his heavy hand, and no doubt this was a pet project for which he had final say, but he was not the architect. Ultimately that credit resides with Foster + Partners. Which is not some local business park contractor executing on some clueless CEOs vision, but a significant architectural firm that has addressed these same sorts of problems in numerous projects around the world.

 

[flipperfeet]

Or they can, you know, go outside and walk across the gigantic park in the middle...

Yep, the climate is conducive to it at least eleven months of the year, and like a college campus it is likely they envision small work-group gatherings in what will be a very large and private green space.

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-c...3265730-site-plan-landscaping-15-1000x647.jpg

 

[noisycats]

Pretty much everything, from what I have seen thus far. It seems clear that the central organizing principle here is the circular plan. It's the kind of sexy form that Steve loved in consumer products, but plan abstraction is not necessarily a good place to start with architecture.

Several posters here have identified the most obvious issue, which is the vast scale of the building and the problems inherent with traveling from one side of the building to the other. Maybe Steve is having a conversation with God at this very moment and has persuaded Him to make rain fall less often over Cupertino, but failing intervention from the Almighty, employees in this building are going to be taking a lot of long hikes.

Second, the circular plan means that the building will be essentially devoid of the kinds of visual cues that we use to know where we are. Every angle of the building will look the same, at least externally. Internally I'd expect much the same problem to occur. This building is probably going to be very disorienting.

Third, the plan dictated the complete isolation of this building from the surrounding grid. It's a single, gigantic segregated land use requiring everyone who wants to do anything but work or eat at the company cafeteria to get into their car and drive somewhere else. A less dogmatic approach to architectural objectification would have accommodated a building more integrated into the place where it exists and have been more functional in that respect as well.

Those are just some of the more apparent functional issues with this building.

So, since no one here really know the internal layout of the building, nor does anyone here know the way Apple likes to "organize" employees/shops/workstations, etc, this is all pretty much conjecture ... isn't it?

What is not disorientating about any large modern industrial park? Cubicle farms, hallways, mixed office space? Whether circular or rectangular, once beyond a certain size, your surroundings all look the same until you can establish orientating cues.

What is better, more efficient, more humanizing? Towers? Large rectangles? A triangle or two? Large building are by their definition, large. Maybe the goal is, in part, a sort of isolation, especially from non-Apple entities. And isn't form one of Apple's core functions? One could argue New York's Cube is form over function, but it is their signature, and actually drives people to visit the store. Function is sometimes more than the shortest distance between two points.

Lastly, Jobs is dead. The ground has not even been broken yet on this building. Cook is a master logistician. I don't think he would continue to pursue a design folly of this magnitude if it truly were a folly.

But of course all this is opinion.

Just as is the statement this building represents form over function. The two aren't always mutually exclusive.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Mac is most popular operating system of the world now a days.Every body want to work on mac operating system .............

We loves you Apple long time, baby.

 

[flipperfeet]

Third, the plan dictated the complete isolation of this building from the surrounding grid. It's a single, gigantic segregated land use requiring everyone who wants to do anything but work or eat at the company cafeteria to get into their car and drive somewhere else. A less dogmatic approach to architectural objectification would have accommodated a building more integrated into the place where it exists and have been more functional in that respect as well.

Those are just some of the more apparent functional issues with this building.

@IJ Reilly, isn't your third point a critique that should be leveled against all of suburbia? This applies to nearly every business park in the US, not just this particular Apple building. Further it is the unfortunate cultural norm for us Americans to get in our cars to go three blocks rather than walk or ride a bike. The kind of integration you describe is really only found in urban centers.

 

[cvaldes]

I guess my point here is that while many of your assertions may in the end be validated, the fifteen basically identical architectural-glass covered block buildings that make up the Cisco Campus, and the six identical cylindrical architectural glass towers that make up the Oracle campus share the same climate and very similar employee density and don't suffer from these problems on a day-to-day basis. (I have been on both).

It's funny how people who clearly have never been to Silicon Valley seem to know everything about what's wrong with this place and exactly how to fix it.

Or, they simply don't know that similar things are already here and this is the status quo (for better or worse).

It's like all the comments about hoping for public tours at the new facility. What other Silicon Valley corporation gives regular tours to the general public at their headquarters? Maybe none?

The majority of MR commentors seem to have very little knowledge about whatever bubble they live in (particularly what's going on outside of the United States). I guess the view from mommy's basement isn't all that great.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I guess my point here is that while many of your assertions may in the end be validated, the fifteen basically identical architectural-glass covered block buildings that make up the Cisco Campus, and the six identical cylindrical architectural glass towers that make up the Oracle campus share the same climate and very similar employee density and don't suffer from these problems on a day-to-day basis. (I have been on both).

Granted Jobs was well known for his heavy hand, and no doubt this was a pet project for which he had final say, but he was not the architect. Ultimately that credit resides with Foster + Partners. Which is not some local business park contractor executing on some clueless CEOs vision, but a significant architectural firm that has addressed these same sorts of problems in numerous projects around the world.

But the point I am making is that this is one monumental building, not a series of related buildings. You can't escape the issue of the identical elevations from every angle, and the disorientation this creates. Good architects go to a lot of trouble to avoid issues like this. I strongly suspect that the plan concept was not Fosters. It seems far more likely that Steve took this concept to Foster and said "make this work." In other words, I think he treated it like one of his consumer products, i.e., "this is what I want. You solve the problems."

----------

So, since no one here really know the internal layout of the building, nor does anyone here know the way Apple likes to "organize" employees/shops/workstations, etc, this is all pretty much conjecture ... isn't it?

What is not disorientating about any large modern industrial park? Cubicle farms, hallways, mixed office space? Whether circular or rectangular, once beyond a certain size, your surroundings all look the same until you can establish orientating cues.

What is better, more efficient, more humanizing? Towers? Large rectangles? A triangle or two? Large building are by their definition, large. Maybe the goal is, in part, a sort of isolation, especially from non-Apple entities. And isn't form one of Apple's core functions? One could argue New York's Cube is form over function, but it is their signature, and actually drives people to visit the store. Function is sometimes more than the shortest distance between two points.

Lastly, Jobs is dead. The ground has not even been broken yet on this building. Cook is a master logistician. I don't think he would continue to pursue a design folly of this magnitude if it truly were a folly.

But of course all this is opinion.

Just as is the statement this building represents form over function. The two aren't always mutually exclusive.

Yup, there's a whole lot of, thoughtless, pedestrian, mediocre and even downright terrible architecture out there. No disagreement on that point, if that was the point you are making. For those of us who care about architecture (and didn't just discover it because of this building), this project looks not so much like a "folly" but like a huge missed opportunity. Clearly, this building is Steve's legacy, a monument to him. This is part of the problem, and Tim Cook wouldn't dare touch it, is my sense of it.

 

[flipperfeet]

It's funny how people who clearly have never been to Silicon Valley seem to know everything about what's wrong with this place and exactly how to fix it.

Or, they simply don't know that similar things are already here and this is the status quo (for better or worse).

It's like all the comments about hoping for public tours at the new facility. What other Silicon Valley corporation gives regular tours to the general public at their headquarters? Maybe none?

The majority of MR commentors seem to have very little knowledge about whatever bubble they live in (particularly what's going on outside of the United States). I guess the view from mommy's basement isn't all that great.

Agreed. I would note that many high-tech companies have executive briefing centers which generally offer some sort of campus experience as part on their programs.

 

[IJ Reilly]

@IJ Reilly, isn't your third point a critique that should be leveled against all of suburbia? This applies to nearly every business park in the US, not just this particular Apple building. Further it is the unfortunate cultural norm for us Americans to get in our cars to go three blocks rather than walk or ride a bike. The kind of integration you describe is really only found in urban centers.

Essentially, yes. The deep irony is, this critique has resulted in some massive changes in thinking about architecture and planning over the last 30 years. But the new Apple campus essentially ignores all of these learned lessons. In terms of land planning, it comes right out of the 1970s or earlier. Every architectural observer I've seen comment on this project has come to same conclusion. Once you get over the startling size and the novel plan, it represents a retrograde approach to architecture and city planning. So we can only dream about what those billions might have bought.

 

[flipperfeet]

...I strongly suspect that the plan concept was not Fosters. It seems far more likely that Steve took this concept to Foster and said "make this work." In other words, I think he treated it like one of his consumer products, i.e., "this is what I want. You solve the problems."

Respectfully, this is pure conjecture. I seriously doubt this is how Foster + Partners would ever characterize any of their projects including what is likely to be a signature piece (good or bad).

 

[IJ Reilly]

Respectfully, this is pure conjecture. I seriously doubt this is how Foster + Partners would ever characterize any of their projects including what is likely to be a signature piece (good or bad).

Conjecture based on evidence is not merely a guess.

First, we should have no difficulty seeing how Steve could have dictated this concept, through our understanding of how Steve operated. His method in running Apple was to come up with concepts and order his staff to make it work. As we know, this did not always result in successful products. Often it did, but not always by any means. Architecture was steps away from his talent, though he didn't think so (and this building is not the only example).

It is clear that Steve was very invested in this building, to the extent that he struggled out of his sickbed to present it to the Cupertino City Council personally. We should not fail to see the significance in this.

Second, the plan presents so many inherent architectural problems that I doubt very much any competent architect would have suggested the scheme. The architect will have plenty of problems to solve in such a big building without starting with one that complicates all of the others. Not that architects don't thrive on challenges, and not that any architect would turn down such a plum project even if it came with a client's straightjacket. But they would not choose to start that way.

The bottom line here is the one I mentioned first: the ring plan reads only from the sky, not from the ground where people actually move about and interact with buildings. From the ground this plan presents only problems that need to be solved, and no apparent advantages. This is why Steve's involvement with formulating the plan is not mere conjecture. The evidence that he was very attached to the idea is strong.

 

[ID_Field_Blank]

Maybe there's hope for the scroll wheel yet!

 

[flipperfeet]

Essentially, yes. The deep irony is, this critique has resulted in some massive changes in thinking about architecture and planning over the last 30 years. But the new Apple campus essentially ignores all of these learned lessons. In terms of land planning, it comes right out of the 1970s or earlier. Every architectural observer I've seen comment on this project has come to same conclusion. Once you get over the startling size and the novel plan, it represents a retrograde approach to architecture and city planning. So we can only dream about what those billions might have bought.

"..what those billions might have bought." Really? This is a multi-billion dollar building? What I have read is the land cost $160 million and they have a budget of $500 million. It would be extremely uncharacteristic for Tim Cook to commit 2% of Apple's cash reserves to house 13,000 employees.

I have no doubt you are passionate about architecture and its study, but now I think you are just taking your dislike of Steve Jobs (design sense and/or the man) and layering one cartoonish characterization on top of the other.

----------

Conjecture based on evidence is not merely a guess.

First, we should have no difficulty seeing how Steve could have dictated this concept, through our understanding of how Steve operated. His method in running Apple was to come up with concepts and order his staff to make it work. As we know, this did not always result in successful products. Often it did, but not always by any means. Architecture was steps away from his talent, though he didn't think so (and this building is not the only example).

It is clear that Steve was very invested in this building, to the extent that he struggled out of his sickbed to present it to the Cupertino City Council personally. We should not fail to see the significance in this.

Second, the plan presents so many inherent architectural problems that I doubt very much any competent architect would have suggested the scheme. The architect will have plenty of problems to solve in such a big building without starting with one that complicates all of the others. Not that architects don't thrive on challenges, and not that any architect would turn down such a plum project even if it came with a client's straightjacket. But they would not choose to start that way.

The bottom line here is the one I mentioned first: the ring plan reads only from the sky, not from the ground where people actually move about and interact with buildings. From the ground this plan presents only problems that need to be solved, and no apparent advantages. This is why Steve's involvement with formulating the plan is not mere conjecture. The evidence that he was very attached to the idea is strong.

Like the man himself, someday someone who actually has first hand account of the building's design and construction will write a factual history. I am betting it will not read as megalomaniacal as you have imagined, but your fictional account is compelling reading.

 

[IJ Reilly]

"..what those billions might have bought." Really? This is a multi-billion dollar building? What I have read is the land cost $160 million and they have a budget of $500 million. It would be extremely uncharacteristic for Tim Cook to commit 2% of Apple's cash reserves to house 13,000 employees.

I have no doubt you are passionate about architecture and its study, but now I think you are just taking your dislike of Steve Jobs (design sense and/or the man) and layering one cartoonish characterization on top of the other.

----------




Like the man himself, someday someone who actually has first hand account of the building's design and construction will write a factual history. I am betting it will not read as megalomaniacal as you have imagined, but your fictional account is compelling reading.

What those hundreds of millions would have bought. Changes my point completely, I'm sure.

I have no "dislike" of Steve Jobs. That is a completely ridiculous conclusion to draw. The man had great strengths and deep flaws. He was hardly perfect; you only need to read the biography to know that. You have read the biography, right?

Sorry, you don't win any points by overstating my case. I'd suggest you seek out other architectural commentary on this project. Try to find anything more than luke warm. Everything I've read to date is far more critical than anything I've said here, so good luck with that.

 

[HiRez]

I'm not the only one who thought of this, am I?

 

[flipperfeet]

What those hundreds of millions would have bought. Changes my point completely, I'm sure.

I have no "dislike" of Steve Jobs. That is a completely ridiculous conclusion to draw. The man had great strengths and deep flaws. He was hardly perfect; you only need to read the biography to know that. You have read the biography, right?

Sorry, you don't win any points by overstating my case. I'd suggest you seek out other architectural commentary on this project. Try to find anything more than luke warm. Everything I've read to date is far more critical than anything I've said here, so good luck with that.

Yes, hundreds of millions is significantly different, than billions by at least an order of magnitude. If there is no difference, why not just say trillions? You are implying a significant something better could be done with that money, order of magnitudes do make it completely different.

Yes, I have read the biography. And while I never met the man, I have nearly a dozen former co-workers who worked on his projects directly for over a decade and were subject to his tirades and vagaries as well as his occasional praise. They corroborate the biography, Jobs was just as likely to come up with a great idea as he was to see it in others and eventually claim it as his own. They do not toss around the genius card as often as the press, but they all seem to agree, more often than not Jobs was able to see something that others could not and would find ways to make things better, not just his way. Rather than "this is my idea make it happen," they describe the experience as "this is my vision how can we make it happen" or "not good enough, its crap, start again."

There is not a piece of architecture or architect that has not received multiple critiques regardless of its fame or infamy. That you are one of many voices that does not like this building, or feel it is a failure before the first shovel of dirt is dug does not validate your hypothesis this could only be the work of an architectural team cowed by Steve Jobs into putting it on paper. This building may ultimately be despised by this generation of architects and its occupants, it may even become the poster child for what not to do in architecture schools the world over, but it will also surely become a significant discussion point in how to solve design problems in those same schools. And that is unmistakably both signature Jobs and Apple.

 

[Prof.]

Unless the campus has underground tunnels criss-crossing from one end to the other... it's going to be a pain to go from one end to the other.

You cut through the courtyard....

 

[flipperfeet]

You cut through the courtyard....

People who do not live in the SF Bay Area have a hard time understanding you can move freely outdoors with not much more than a light coat and occasional umbrella 355 days of the year.

edit: hilarious a statement of fact about weather in Cupertino gets me a vote down.

 

[Prof.]

People who do not live in the SF Bay Area have a hard time understanding you can move freely outdoors with not much more than a light coat and occasional umbrella 355 days of the year.

Ha, you have a point. However, I'm from Chicago and I always cut through my school's courtyard - even in the dead of winter.

 

[flipperfeet]

Ha, you have a point. However, I'm from Chicago and I always cut through my school's courtyard - even in the dead of winter.

And I guess us folks in the Bay Are have a hard time understanding that particular mindset as well.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, hundreds of millions is significantly different, than billions by at least an order of magnitude. If there is no difference, why not just say trillions? You are implying a significant something better could be done with that money, order of magnitudes do make it completely different.

Yes, I have read the biography. And while I never met the man, I have nearly a dozen former co-workers who worked on his projects directly for over a decade and were subject to his tirades and vagaries as well as his occasional praise. They corroborate the biography, Jobs was just as likely to come up with a great idea as he was to see it in others and eventually claim it as his own. They do not toss around the genius card as often as the press, but they all seem to agree, more often than not Jobs was able to see something that others could not and would find ways to make things better, not just his way. Rather than "this is my idea make it happen," they describe the experience as "this is my vision how can we make it happen" or "not good enough, its crap, start again."

There is not a piece of architecture or architect that has not received multiple critiques regardless of its fame or infamy. That you are one of many voices that does not like this building, or feel it is a failure before the first shovel of dirt is dug does not validate your hypothesis this could only be the work of an architectural team cowed by Steve Jobs into putting it on paper. This building may ultimately be despised by this generation of architects and its occupants, it may even become the poster child for what not to do in architecture schools the world over, but it will also surely become a significant discussion point in how to solve design problems in those same schools. And that is unmistakably both signature Jobs and Apple.

The precise cost of the project is irrelevant. It is a very big project by any reckoning, with a price tag to match. This is all that matters to the point.

I take it from your response that you were unable to find any praise for this project from the architectural community. I think it might be wise for you to acknowledge that the people who are accustomed to looking at this sort of thing are not being deluded, they are not talking through their collective hats, nor do they hate Steve Jobs, or Apple. Their views are the result of knowledge in the subject, and an ability to evaluate what has been presented. Here are just a few:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/10/entertainment/la-ca-applehq-20110911

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/09/apple-new-headquarters.html

http://cupertino.patch.com/articles/critics-calling-out-apple-2-campus-design

http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/philip-langdon/15267/apple-builds-suburban-lemon

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/04/Apple-headquarters-project-is-moving-ahead.asp

Alan Hess was the most critical of any of the commenters I read at the time. Unfortunately his piece is no longer online so you will have to judge it by the quotes from it used by others.

 

[flipperfeet]

The precise cost of the project is irrelevant. It is a very big project by any reckoning, with a price tag to match. This is all that matters to the point.

I take it from your response that you were unable to find any praise for this project from the architectural community. I think it might be wise for you to acknowledge that the people who are accustomed to looking at this sort of thing are not being deluded, they are not talking through their collective hats, nor do they hate Steve Jobs, or Apple. Their views are the result of knowledge in the subject, and an ability to evaluate what has been presented. Here are just a few:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/10/entertainment/la-ca-applehq-20110911

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/09/apple-new-headquarters.html

http://cupertino.patch.com/articles/critics-calling-out-apple-2-campus-design

http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/philip-langdon/15267/apple-builds-suburban-lemon

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/04/Apple-headquarters-project-is-moving-ahead.asp

Alan Hess was the most critical of any of the commenters I read at the time. Unfortunately his piece is no longer online so you will have to judge it by the quotes from it used by others.

I get it, round homogenous structures have inherent problems. So do cubes, cylinders and three sided columns but these are the basic building blocks of architecture. I gather from your response it is important to you that I acknowledge respected architectural critics have lots to not like about this building. I acknowledge this fact. Feel better?

It would also appear to be important that because you have come to the same conclusions and this is the majority opinion I (and others) must come to the same conclusion or I (we) are misinformed and have no business providing an opinion/assessment on the architecture. Well that is not the way it works with architecture. History has shown time and again how fallible the majority can be when it comes to design and architecture.

I believe I will withhold judgement on this until after it is built and the first four thousand start using it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I get it, round homogenous structures have inherent problems. So do cubes, cylinders and three sided columns but these are the basic building blocks of architecture. I gather from your response it is important to you that I acknowledge respected architectural critics have lots to not like about this building. I acknowledge this fact. Feel better?

It would also appear to be important that because you have come to the same conclusions and this is the majority opinion I (and others) must come to the same conclusion or I (we) are misinformed and have no business providing an opinion/assessment on the architecture. Well that is not the way it works with architecture. History has shown time and again how fallible the majority can be when it comes to design and architecture.

I believe I will withhold judgement on this until after it is built and the first four thousand start using it.

I think it's appropriate to acknowledge and respect the opinions of people who know more about a subject than you do. This should be more important to you in this case than it will ever be to me. I hope I don't have to explain why.

It's not a question of "majority opinion." I have come to the same conclusions as the critics, more or less, because the issues with the project are fundamental, and readily apparent, if you understand what is at stake. The issues raised by the critics will not go away when the building is completed, unless the building is completed in a very different way than it has been designed. Since the building's design is probably not going to be changed in any significant way, then the issues are baked in.

BTW, I know how it works with architecture. Even terrible buildings can become well-regarded by the public, given enough time. This is a different issue than whether they were designed well at the start.

Ironically, probably none of us will have the opportunity to revaluate this building after it is completed, since it will be restricted to Apple employees. Unlike the current Apple campus (a pretty dull collection of buildings, incidentally) this campus is designed to be completely closed to the public.

 

[b166er]

This is a beautiful building. It's a shame there won't be tours, I'd love to see it with my own eyes if I ever make it out west. I'd walk through that courtyard every day if I worked there. Can you imagine the security in that place?!

Congrats to Apple for putting more people to work in this country and for getting all the clearance they need to make this building happen.

 

[flipperfeet]

I think it's appropriate to acknowledge and respect the opinions of people who know more about a subject than you do. This should be more important to you in this case than it will ever be to me. I hope I don't have to explain why.

It's not a question of "majority opinion." I have come to the same conclusions as the critics, more or less, because the issues with the project are fundamental, and readily apparent, if you understand what is at stake. The issues raised by the critics will not go away when the building is completed, unless the building is completed in a very different way than it has been designed. Since the building's design is probably not going to be changed in any significant way, then the issues are baked in.

BTW, I know how it works with architecture. Even terrible buildings can become well-regarded by the public, given enough time. This is a different issue than whether they were designed well at the start.

Ironically, probably none of us will have the opportunity to revaluate this building after it is completed, since it will be restricted to Apple employees. Unlike the current Apple campus (a pretty dull collection of buildings, incidentally) this campus is designed to be completely closed to the public.

Let's be clear. "Respect" is not something that is in play here. Courtesy, civility, willingness to acknowledge someone else's point of view, yes. But deference because I should acknowledge that you have the superior opinion or a better understanding of design and usability? Please. You do not know me from Adam, nor do you have any understanding of the number of times in a week I deal with smug individuals who judge other people's work without the slightest understanding of the design brief or project parameters. That you dismiss the associated architects' work without having a firm grasp of their assignment, the manner in which teams and security at Apple operate, the details of the interior elements, the actual budget and the other projects parameters puts you in the category of a Monday-morning-quarterback. Might it be the inherent problems are being exploited to address an organizational need for privacy and secrecy? In other words, you may have played football in high-school and college and know all the rules of the game, but you were not actually on the field when this game was played. Nor do you seem interested in more than what is going on at the surface. So yours is an educated opinion, not an informed opinion and there is a world of difference between the two.