Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The image of the proposed Apple store is butt ugly and the Yarra building looks like it has already been demolished. Ready for the landfill. Are the photos reversed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pikup Andropov
Am curious about what reasoning deems that building "heritage". It's not old. Presumably nothing special happened there. It's unique, but not in a good way: an incomplete facade failing to hide a boring architecture. Current occupancy does not appear special.

Apparently the _location_ is special, considering a retail chain with exceptionally high per-square-foot revenues wanted to build something expensive "there, or nowhere".

Sure, keep it if the locals think it special.
 
Has Apple done anything positive lately? I’m being serious, here...


You should ask the 300 MILLION or so people who have bought on the new Apple products in the past year. We're enjoying life made better with great Apple products, (just love my new Mac mini!) while a tiny fraction of the world trolls on Apple all day. Winning with life! Come on over to the positive side, it's a lot more fun. I promise you where Apple builds a store in Melbourne won't impact your life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the johnmc
There’s really no point in posting that—that was the original design, not the final one. Apple completely re-designed it when the locals objected.

But design wasn’t the real issue at all. It turned out it wasn’t the pagoda design—it was every/all designs. The actual problem was the demolition of the Yarra building—which many locals were actually looking forward to. However, the heritage authorities decided that the Yarra building should remain due to “cultural heritage significance.” Which is kind of weird because that Yarra building was built in the early 2000s ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think the point of his posting was to show that any modernly Western designed structure would not fit in place of the Yarra building. So no matter what design Apple pitched it would not fit in
[doublepost=1554476369][/doublepost]
I get that to some people it feels really good to “stick it to Apple”, the big trillion dollar bully. Cut them down to size, right? Show ‘em who’s boss. “Screw you Apple, we don’t want you here.”

Awesome. Makes people feel big and powerful. Cool.

But who did the two dozen “Our city, Our Square” protestors really stick it to? Was it Apple, who will build their store in Sydney now? Or was it the 4.8 million residents of Melbourne, who will lose out on millions of dollars in tax revenue every year? Maybe the losers are all the surrounding retail shops and cafes who would have benefited from the increased foot traffic. Or maybe the 100-150 workers who would have worked at that Apple store.

But who cares, right? The big, bad Apple who wanted to destroy that 17-year old beautiful, historic Yarra building got put in their place.

I guess this is a good lesson in just how much bullying a couple dozen people can do when they’re organized. I don’t know if “the people” won, but these people sure did. Congrats to them.

View attachment 830489


https://amp.theage.com.au/melbourne...-apple-out-of-fed-square-20190210-p50wu1.html
If that's what you got from this you totally missed the point. I'll also add that there are people who value things other than money. Do you think the city and board are not aware of what could have been? Trust me, they are very aware of all the foot traffic and tax revenue, but more importantly they didn't want to destroy something they felt was important to them and the area and the locals agreed. Case closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woyzeck and mixel
The former Nike and now Telstra store on Bourke St would be the best spot or the GPO building/ H&M on Bourke St. I’m surprised Apple didn’t pounce on those locations many years ago.
The GPO building would've been perfect indeed! It's rather a mess with H&M occupying the space currently. what a shame
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueParadox
Yes but there is no denying that normal functioning humans have taste and can detect crap from art. Not everything created is by defition art.

Although true that not everything created is art I would say that everything created with the intention of being art is art whether anyone other than the creator appreciates or not. And that building clearly isn't designed solely with utility in mind, therefor I'd include it in "art." Just not art that I personally find any beauty in.
 
I like the Yarra building and could see how Apple could have remodeled it to put their store inside and keep the outside looking as it does now, giving the best of both worlds.
 
Why is it “ego” to want to build a store someplace?

A restaurant opened downtown. Oh the ego of those people!

It's an aside comment. Of late, Apple has let its achievements make it think it is virtuous and entitled. What Apple decides is right. What Apple wants, Apple gets. When people or organizations reach that level of self importance, they want to build momuments. Apple's over-the-top stores (and headquarters) are that. A lavish store—or restuarant—that demonstrates the tastes of a talented but humble owner is one thing. A lavish store that flaunts the wealth of an arrogant corporation is another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woyzeck and jeyf
The Yarra Bldg. looks like something Frank Gehry designed after dropping acid. Any aesthetic, even Apple's condescending pseudo-minimalist claptrap, would be an improvement.

I don't think you're using that correctly. I don't see Apple's minimalistic approach to be condescending in any way. If someone feels that way, it's on them. Apple has transformed retail spaces away from cluttered and confusing and that's a good thing!
[doublepost=1554481279][/doublepost]
It's an aside comment. Of late, Apple has let its achievements make it think it is virtuous and entitled. What Apple decides is right. What Apple wants, Apple gets. When people or organizations reach that level of self importance, they want to build momuments. Apple's over-the-top stores (and headquarters) are that. A lavish store—or restuarant—that demonstrates the tastes of a talented but humble owner is one thing. A lavish store that flaunts the wealth of an arrogant corporation is another.

Again, purely a subjective opinion. Look at any major city, and more specifically at some of the more creative skyscrapers in them. Are you going to say the same thing about those owners? It's the creativity in the design that makes it interesting, rather than boring. Could Apple just build a whole bunch of boring square buildings? Yes. But why should they when they can get creative? Minimalism and simplicity is an outcome of creativity. Creativity does not need to be complex. The complexity is hidden.
[doublepost=1554481497][/doublepost]
Is there not *some* park nearby Apple could use for their store? Why is Apple targeting a cultural reserve? Why start an entirely new, grand, public square somewhere else?

They very well might. They've cancelled the store ... at this location. That's all this article says. It doesn't say they don't plan on building a store at all, does it?
 
It's an aside comment. Of late, Apple has let its achievements make it think it is virtuous and entitled. What Apple decides is right. What Apple wants, Apple gets. When people or organizations reach that level of self importance, they want to build momuments. Apple's over-the-top stores (and headquarters) are that. A lavish store—or restuarant—that demonstrates the tastes of a talented but humble owner is one thing. A lavish store that flaunts the wealth of an arrogant corporation is another.

You know apple doesn't "think," right? It's not a person. It can't "feel" entitled. It can't be "arrogant." Nor is its headquarters "over the top." Have you been there? It fits right into the environment, and the only unique thing is that it's perfectly round. It's not like they built a giant skyscraper and named it after themselves.
 
I think the point of his posting was to show that any modernly Western designed structure would not fit in place of the Yarra building. So no matter what design Apple pitched it would not fit in
[doublepost=1554476369][/doublepost]
If that's what you got from this you totally missed the point. I'll also add that there are people who value things other than money. Do you think the city and board are not aware of what could have been? Trust me, they are very aware of all the foot traffic and tax revenue, but more importantly they didn't want to destroy something they felt was important to them and the area and the locals agreed. Case closed.
Awesome, a couple dozen protesters got what they wanted, who cares what the other 4.8 million in Melbourne wanted, right? Got to give them credit though, they organized and lobbied and it worked.

That so-called historic building is all of 17 years old :rolleyes: But if the heritage authority wants to keep that building, that’s their choice. Apparently no one has been able to come up with an alternate site, so it looks like Apple will build the global flagship store in Sydney ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
I don't think you're using that correctly. I don't see Apple's minimalistic approach to be condescending in any way. If someone feels that way, it's on them. Apple has transformed retail spaces away from cluttered and confusing and that's a good thing!
[doublepost=1554481279][/doublepost]

Again, purely a subjective opinion. Look at any major city, and more specifically at some of the more creative skyscrapers in them. Are you going to say the same thing about those owners? It's the creativity in the design that makes it interesting, rather than boring. Could Apple just build a whole bunch of boring square buildings? Yes. But why should they when they can get creative? Minimalism and simplicity is an outcome of creativity. Creativity does not need to be complex. The complexity is hidden.

Skyscrapers and other luxury corporate diggs ARE ego monuments. Their owners, and the architects who designed them, admit this in every interview or documentary.

I said nothing about the designs themselves. I didn't argue that Apple's stores should be pragmatic. What I distrust is when a trending company or industry thinks their popularity and contributions deserve reverance. Apple's landmark stores are churches paying homage to products and Apple's success—they are not homages to humanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woyzeck and LordVic
Awesome, a couple dozen protesters got what they wanted, who cares what the other 4.8 million in Melbourne wanted, right? Got to give them credit though, they organized and lobbied and it worked.

That so-called historic building is all of 17 years old :rolleyes: But if the heritage authority wants to keep that building, that’s their choice. Apparently no one has been able to come up with an alternate site, so it looks like Apple will build the global flagship store in Sydney ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well if you felt that way you should've been out counter-protesting.
 
So is this the only available space in this entire shopping district? or anywhere else in the city? Apple has built stores inside malls and adapted to just any kind of existing footprint everywhere else with no issues.
 
Awesome, a couple dozen protesters got what they wanted, who cares what the other 4.8 million in Melbourne wanted, right? Got to give them credit though, they organized and lobbied and it worked.

Same thing happened with the data center in Ireland. Even after the ruling to go ahead was given, the "concerned citizens" dragged it through the courts until Apple decided to abandon the project entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dotnet
You know apple doesn't "think," right? It's not a person. It can't "feel" entitled. It can't be "arrogant." Nor is its headquarters "over the top." Have you been there? It fits right into the environment, and the only unique thing is that it's perfectly round. It's not like they built a giant skyscraper and named it after themselves.

You are familiar with the definition of personification, right? No. You apparently aren't. Refrain from recognizing only the literal interpretation of words and you'll improve your understanding of abstractions.

Obviously, a group diesn't have a singular conscience. Still, it has a culture which guides its behavior. It can have a collective attitude. If your literal interpretation is sufficient, why are companies—the virtual avatar—sued for transgressions rather than the employees who caused them?

As for Apple's spaceship headquarters, it is no less a status symbol. Cupertino required the campus to be discreet beyond its borders. That doesn't prevent Apple from showing it off to visitors and drones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woyzeck
that is one ugly building Australia should be thankful that Apple was willing to tear that eyesore down for them .
 
There were protests about how ugly this original building is before it was even built. The government built it anyway. Protesters then complain about the proposed building and they listen.

Why is this? The local government covering the Melbourne CBD is composed mostly of anti corporation socialists due to the nature of the demographics of the people who live in the CBD. (The cbd doesn’t co twin typical Aussie’s)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.