Apple's new campus looks almost looks like its main purpose will be to create a very unpleasant experience for its Cupertino neighbors: Streets lined with parking decks (partly submerged, of course), energy plants, and an absence of people.
“The problem with putting an Apple Store in Cupertino is there’s just not the traffic for it.” Jobs told city council, dazzling them with his presence in their chambers.
Apple’s new campus design appear intent on keeping it that way. “Style” and “Identity” do not make cities, they make dissociated objects. Cool objects perhaps, but rarely can they ever achieve decent public space.
It’s difficult to imagine the new building's park, for example, will be a public amenity, in which case it may provide that distinctly suburban experience of being stuck in traffic with no views of people, or of anything to do.
Perhaps the campus is an improvement over what’s there now, perhaps it’s no less anti-urban than the rest of Silicon Valley. At any rate, it has been interesting to read the glowing articles in business and computer publications. Some, some such as Fast Company, focus on the innovative use of glass.
For a ring this size, it will be interesting to see if the curved glass behaves any differently than a flat piece, as the radii will be so large. With local seismic concerns, the glass will need to move and shift just as other parts of the building.
So, sorry FastCo, but “structural glass” does not refer to glass that holds up the building, only that the sheets can support themselves if held in place by points or by silicone joints. This makes it different than glass held in traditional panes. While I’d be excited to see an actual building structure built of glass in a seismic zone, it’s not likely.
It is, of course, another Apple object, made to evoke emotion for its user, with no ability to expand or upgrade without buying a new one. In that sense it is perfect, and Foster and Partners have done exceedingly well at emulating the ethos of Apple. The object is complete, current and stylish. It serves no one but its buyer and the sourcing of its design (to Lord Foster) suggests a sophistication and artistic appreciation for the functional that transcends an ordinary object.
That's fine for consumer products, and perhaps even inspirational. But for architecture it's a dead end, even if it's being hailed as a breakthrough.
“The problem with putting an Apple Store in Cupertino is there’s just not the traffic for it.” Jobs told city council, dazzling them with his presence in their chambers.
Apple’s new campus design appear intent on keeping it that way. “Style” and “Identity” do not make cities, they make dissociated objects. Cool objects perhaps, but rarely can they ever achieve decent public space.
It’s difficult to imagine the new building's park, for example, will be a public amenity, in which case it may provide that distinctly suburban experience of being stuck in traffic with no views of people, or of anything to do.
Perhaps the campus is an improvement over what’s there now, perhaps it’s no less anti-urban than the rest of Silicon Valley. At any rate, it has been interesting to read the glowing articles in business and computer publications. Some, some such as Fast Company, focus on the innovative use of glass.
For a ring this size, it will be interesting to see if the curved glass behaves any differently than a flat piece, as the radii will be so large. With local seismic concerns, the glass will need to move and shift just as other parts of the building.
So, sorry FastCo, but “structural glass” does not refer to glass that holds up the building, only that the sheets can support themselves if held in place by points or by silicone joints. This makes it different than glass held in traditional panes. While I’d be excited to see an actual building structure built of glass in a seismic zone, it’s not likely.
It is, of course, another Apple object, made to evoke emotion for its user, with no ability to expand or upgrade without buying a new one. In that sense it is perfect, and Foster and Partners have done exceedingly well at emulating the ethos of Apple. The object is complete, current and stylish. It serves no one but its buyer and the sourcing of its design (to Lord Foster) suggests a sophistication and artistic appreciation for the functional that transcends an ordinary object.
That's fine for consumer products, and perhaps even inspirational. But for architecture it's a dead end, even if it's being hailed as a breakthrough.
No comments:
Post a Comment