In this case it wasn't that old (1916) nor historic (unless you count HP beer bash parties as historic). However, the building is an interesting contrast to the new building, and nice they decided to keep it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Has Finished Moving and Precisely Reassembling a Historic Barn At Its New Headquarters
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In this case it wasn't that old (1916) nor historic (unless you count HP beer bash parties as historic). However, the building is an interesting contrast to the new building, and nice they decided to keep it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I think it's where they are building Chitty Chitty Bang Bang...
[doublepost=1499956554][/doublepost]
They update them "thinner."
Last edited:
Even a 13th century building at Oxford was "only" 100 years old at some point and could easily have been torn down, since it wasn't particularly old or anything! Bet you're glad they preserved it through the 14th, 15th, 16th centuries etc.
As a Brit, I find if funny how Americans refer to things built in the early 20th Century as 'historic'
That comes across a little snobbish. So historic isn't the right word so much as "heritage" or "listed" since it's locally relevant to the agricultural history of the area.
"Historic" doesn't relate to age so much as importance and impact anyway. I can think of plenty of historic things from the past 50 years that are younger than that barn and plenty of things much older that aren't!
Just because the new worlds' built environments aren't as old as Europe doesn't mean what was built isn't worth keeping. By that logic Europe wouldn't have anything "historic".
I seem to recall Apple not wanting to bother keeping the barn until they were forced to but maybe I'm wrong on that. I'm sure they did a good job. It looks great. Fits in with the supposed orchard they're planting!
Last edited:
One guy’s treasure is another’s rubbish.
The Parthenon I consider rubbish. The last 40 years it has been a construction site. Razed many, many times. Too unsafe to stand within. I would not bat an eye if it finally disappeared. There’s a modern equivalent in Nashville, TN of all places, including an actual size model of Athena within, and huge iron cast doors that is far more interesting, or the museum next door to the actual Parthenon. Keep the Temple of Athena Nike however. To me, very interesting.
I get what you're saying but the barn just doesn't quite evoke the same emotions in me as the Bodleian Library..
Yeah, but... it's a barn dude.
We value the Bodleian library for cultural reasons. Some day, a pioneer California barn may very well evoke the same historical wonder.
As a Brit, I find if funny how Americans refer to things built in the early 20th Century as 'historic'
same thing applies for mediterranean and eastern countries when Northern Europeans do this
As a Brit, I find if funny how Americans refer to things built in the early 20th Century as 'historic'
Funny, my 102 year old grandmother says the exact same thing to me when I refer things in the 90s as being old.
As a Brit, I find if funny how Americans refer to things built in the early 20th Century as 'historic'
True. The house we just purchased in UK is pre-historic according the US standards
It was important to the people who lived on that farm and helped establish the city, and clearly was important enough to the locals for HP to keep it there as well. Churches, libraries, and expensive buildings aren't the only things with meaning, and being less ornate doesn't make something less legitimate. For example, I think Lincoln's plain home is far more fascinating and moving than Trump's gaudy gold apartment.
The conventional minimum age for something to be considered potentially historic is 50 years. This is the standard built into the National Register of Historic Places, and applies everywhere in the country for that registration. The reason why this somewhat arbitrary numerical standard exists is to recognize that it generally takes the passage of considerable time to understand why (or if) events are important. An exception exists for listing younger properties, but it is far more stringent.
Now, for local landmarks, it's up to the locality to decide how old something must be to be listed. Few local governments state a numerical minimum. When faced with that issue, most practitioners in history will use 50 years as a rule of thumb.
That circular building is HUGE! It must be nice to literally crap money. How can you NOT be able to be innovative with those resources at your fingertips?
One of the most important historic and architectural sites on the planet is rubbish?
You're scaring me here, dude.
Take my upvote on a slow news day…
What's the significance of the barn? Is it just that it's been next to Apple's HQ for many years, or did something note worthy happen inside it? Is it Steve Jobs' birth place?
Easily discovered:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/12/26/apple-to-save-historic-barn-on-site-of-new-cupertino-campus/
