Slashdot Mirror


Critic Pans Apple's New Campus As a Retrograde Cocoon

theodp writes "LA Times architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne isn't exactly bullish on Apple's proposed new headquarters, which will hold 12,000 Apple employees in its 2.8 million sq ft. Described by Apple as 'a serene and secure environment' for its employees, Hawthorne says the new campus 'keeps itself aloof from the world around it to a degree that is unusual even in a part of California dominated by office parks. The proposed building is essentially one very long hallway connecting endlessly with itself.' Corporate architecture of this kind, adds Hawthorne, seems to promote a mindset decried by Berkeley prof Louise A. Mozingo. 'If all you see in your workday are your co-workers and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property,' Mozingo writes, and you drive to and from work in the cocoon of your private car, 'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

332 comments

  1. The Walled Garden Of Eden by cognoscentus · · Score: 5, Funny

    The cocoon must be sealed to contain the reality distortion field!

    1. Re:The Walled Garden Of Eden by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

      Maybe they should change the name to Playtronics.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    2. Re:The Walled Garden Of Eden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. Sounds like they've been taken over by Scientology.

  2. Essentially a walled world by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isnt that Apple's business model anyway?

    1. Re:Essentially a walled world by mikael_j · · Score: 2

      Not really. When it comes to iDevices the software distribution is pretty much a walled garden, yes. But on the computer side this isn't the case. And in general Apple is more about selling products and systems that are tightly integrated and designed to "Just Work(tm)". I'm not saying this always works out the way they want it to, but that seems to be what they strive for. They don't sell you a bunch of generic parts put together into a computer that you are supposed to easily be able to replace and toy with (hardware-wise), they sell a product that's supposed to be good enough that you're not supposed to feel the need to pop the case open.

      It's not for everyone (or every use-case), but when it works it can be extremely good (myself I use a 27" iMac as my main workstation but I wouldn't want every machine in my home to be a mac).

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Essentially a walled world by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      But on the computer side this isn't the case.

      They still sell computers?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Essentially a walled world by errandum · · Score: 1

      It's over 30% of the money they make

    4. Re:Essentially a walled world by tepples · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When it comes to iDevices the software distribution is pretty much a walled garden, yes. But on the computer side this isn't the case.

      This distinction works right up until the point where, as some rumors have it, Apple discontinues the MacBook Air and Mac mini in favor of new iDevices that are glorified iPad and Apple TV and respectively.

    5. Re:Essentially a walled world by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This distinction works right up until the point where, as some rumors have it, Apple discontinues the MacBook Air and Mac mini in favor of new iDevices that are glorified iPad and Apple TV and respectively.

      Your argument works right up to the point were, as rumors typically go, they turn out to be false.

      Save your angst and garment rendering for reality. It's bad enough as it is.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Essentially a walled world by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Exxactly, I thought the building seemed like a perfect fit for the company.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:Essentially a walled world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Their so called "computers" are only one thing: expensive.

      Everything software-wise can be found in GNU/Linux and BSD...

      And they're walled of as well, you can't upgrade them, you can't use their OS on your own-built hardware legally..
      Last I checked their' brutally over-priced Mac Pro can't even sustain multiple graphics cards since the PSU is too weak.

      Some quality there! *irony*

    8. Re:Essentially a walled world by Stiletto · · Score: 0

      Everything software-wise can be found in GNU/Linux and BSD...

      LOL. I love Linux and run it at home, but please. Get back to me when Linux has something even close to Aqua.

    9. Re:Essentially a walled world by Ixokai · · Score: 2

      Right, because Apple is going to get rid of a *growing* and *extremely profitable* portion of their business -- the Mac / computer business -- to.. uh.. what?

      Lock people into a walled garden? Why?

      Hint: That garden does not make them that much money. Yes, sure, they profit off of it. But take all of the money they make off of iTunes, off of iBooks, off of Apps, and any other software or services they make or offer -- take all of it and put it in a pile... and it doesn't even KIND OF approach the pile that Macs make.

      Granted: iDevices make an even bigger pile, but that doesn't mean the Mac pile is some small, or that its not making record profits on its own all the time.

      But Apple sells products. The "walled garden" and the software/content ecosystem is to support those products, not an end to itself. These "rumors" that you mention are nothing but random people talking out of their ass.

      If/when the Mac business stops growing -- again, it is GROWING -- maybe they'll think about dumping it for some kind of even bigger iDevice... thing. Except I have no idea what that would be like. But people still want Apple computers: and they want them more and more. iDevices aren't computers, and while Apple speaks of the "post-pc" universe, and says that for many users in many uses, an iPad actually may be /better/ -- that doesn't mean there isn't a huge and profitable market for PCs.

      You couldn't take someone who wanted a Mac, MacBook Air, MacMini or any of them and convince many of them to buy an iDevice instead -- they're different products, for different needs.

      Macs aren't like iPods which are a declining (but still significant) market for them due to the iPhone being an seamless replacement (except for those with huge music libraries) -- iPod's have been on the steady but slight decline for awhile now. Macs aren't. They're _growing_ still: and they aren't growing out of the red, they're growing years and years past the very solid green and increasing the rate in which that pile of green comes in. Businesses deciding to shut down divisions that make steadily increasing amounts of *profit* every quarter, including record profits during recessions, is kinda beyond stupid to even suggest.

    10. Re:Essentially a walled world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This distinction works right up until the point where, as some rumors have it, Apple discontinues the MacBook Air and Mac mini in favor of new iDevices that are glorified iPad and Apple TV and respectively.

      Your argument works right up to the point were, as rumors typically go, they turn out to be false.

      Bu that's the beauty of this claim: it will never be false, because it will always be in the future, until Apple in 2173 drops the Mac mini because the Mac Implant has dominated the market for the last 20 years - when the haters will claim they were right all along.

    11. Re:Essentially a walled world by harperska · · Score: 1

      Businesses deciding to shut down divisions that make steadily increasing amounts of *profit* every quarter, including record profits during recessions, is kinda beyond stupid to even suggest.

      Like HP?

    12. Re:Essentially a walled world by zoloto · · Score: 1

      rending not rendering

    13. Re:Essentially a walled world by steeviant · · Score: 1

      Their so called "computers" are only one thing: expensive.

      Everything software-wise can be found in GNU/Linux and BSD...

      Apple's "so called computers" are made from the exact same components as all the other so-called computers out there using the x86 platform as you Apple trolls like to point out endlessly, so if most of the software-stack is made of commodity components, and if people are happy to pay for Apple's window-dressing, then what's the issue?

      Personally, I've done the linux on laptop dance before, and found that regessions that break power management don't get much attention from kernel and driver developers. That unresponsiveness, piled on top of the giant steaming heap of shit that is acpi drove me away shrieking in terror. So while I use Linux for desktop and server machines, I've found OS X to be much more dependable on portable machines.

      So as far as I'm concerned any "Apple tax" is a snip to pay for a portable Unix workstation which doesn't have twinkly blue lights all over it and which doesn't use the circuit board as a stressed member. The Macbook Pro is on a par with ThinkPads in terms of build quality, but Apple's power management and enclosure pretties sway me in their direction.

      To each his own.

    14. Re:Essentially a walled world by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That sounds just like Gateway, Dell, IBM, and most every other PC maker.

    15. Re:Essentially a walled world by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      For most households, Apple would do well to make a Mac Home Server that ran multi-user OSX and then integrated a Remote Desktop into the iDevice for the desktop. So, replacing Macs on the desktop with iDevices, and continuing to sell Macs into the home are note exclusive of each other.

    16. Re:Essentially a walled world by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Cant you already do this?

      I mean you can get a Mac Mini quad-core running Lion Server, which serves up your iTunes content and you can control iTunes using any iOS device.

      I think you can even use Apple TV to stream iTunes content that is located on another server (eg. the mac mini just mentioned) on your network, and the iOS device should still work to control that...

      I could be wrong about certain details - I've never used any of the above enough to know...but from what I've heard it should be possible or very close to..."out of the box".

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    17. Re:Essentially a walled world by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Both are new and emerging products, very unlikely they would discontinue them. The "rumours" you mentioned are without substance.

      Also, the only prediction that holds any weight would be that OSX will eventually limit apps to only what's on the App Store, but I cant see it being the same level of restriction as on iOS. Any such limitation would need to be bypassable by a setting that anyone can turn on/off.

      To clarify, I see them making the default setting that you have to get all apps from the App Store. If you want to download/install apps obtained from other sources (eg. the vendor's own website) you would need to enable "external sources" in the Settings panel (which you would be free to do).

      They wont go further than this - it would spell the death of the platform. As I see it, the iDevices are really just there to draw people to the Mac. The mac & OSX are still Apple's main product - their HOME market if you like. The other devices are simply there as candy to bring people over to their platform.

      Once you have an iPhone/iPad, and a collection of content in iTunes, its just a small extra step to make your next "PC" purchase a Mac, with the promise that it will integrate much better with the rest of your Apple stuff which you have been accumulating.

      Its an ingenious plan.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    18. Re:Essentially a walled world by Ixokai · · Score: 1

      Yes, like HP.

      Except from what I've heard -- though I admit I do not pay a lot of attention to HP news -- their PC business has been struggling for a few years now. Slow growth, low profit-- maybe not no profit, again I'm not entirely up to date on HP news. So that's not at all the same thing: Apple's Mac division is HUGELY profitable and growing steadily.

      But even so: yes, this whole HP thing strikes me as astonishingly stupid.

    19. Re:Essentially a walled world by Ixokai · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, except I don't see the "Mac Home Server" as a /server/ thing, per se. A lot of what makes the Mac/PC useful is that it is *different* to use then a fundamentally touch-based device. Apple has gone all-in on "Touch", where Microsoft swears they can make a compelling experience that combines both touch and "traditional" computing -- Apple believes you can't mix the two. You do one or the other, and to try to mix weakens both.

      We'll see who turns up being right -- Windows 8 will be interesting.

      But: for many households, I admit a sort of "home server" may be all a family needs with some iDevices -- except recent stuff Apple is doing is going away from that need, since "Macs" used to fill in that role. The Mac is near to being demoted from being a central hub to being just another client -- and this is a good thing for both Macs and iDevices.

      I wouldn't be surprised to see a sort of 'home server', but I don't see it being a Mac device and I don't see it doing Remote Desktop remote control; instead I see it as a sort of dedicated iAppliance -- in fact, I always sorta thought Apple TV would morph into something like that, until it became a thin client in Gen2. You /can/ do RD from an iPad/iPhone -- and its even usable -- but its not a good experience for what you really need a Mac for. Its good in a pinch, not as a staple of use.

      I think anyone who would really want to use a Mac for anything even kind of would not be satisfied with an iDevice remote-desktop client to some mac server. You'd need some sort of serious dock and a nice big screen before that'd even be okay -- and by then, just get an iMac already. :)

    20. Re:Essentially a walled world by Ixokai · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can do this, mostly. You don't even need Lion Server unless you want a few of the server apps -- which for a home, I don't see anyone caring about. The mac mini servers very very well as a strong little server in a house, despite its cuteness factor. You can enable remote desktop easily, and there's numerous clients for iPad + iPhone (iTeleport being my favorite by far) that work very well with it.

      Apple TV can stream from it fine -- now, /currently/ its not so easily to access / stream content various iOS devices from servers / macs sitting around, so going form mac mini -> iPad for instance isn't actually all that easy, except through syncing and the like. But I think this is being addressed in IOS5; through both AirPlay and the demotion of Macs-as-hubs to just-another-client, wifi syncing and streaming and the like.

    21. Re:Essentially a walled world by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Everything software-wise can be found in GNU/Linux and BSD...

      LOL. I love Linux and run it at home, but please. Get back to me when Linux has something even close to Aqua.

      Not to mention the frameworks that make it so bloody easy to write software that you know will run on every mac running a fairly new version of OS X. Linux standard based is nowhere near this. You probably could use Mono but again, that is not exactly complete yet and you still run the risk of it not working quite right and you are forcing your end users to install a hefty third party library package.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    22. Re:Essentially a walled world by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Why? I did some lovely garment renderings in 3dsmax design 2012 late last night!

      --
      -- no sig today
    23. Re:Essentially a walled world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything software-wise can be found in GNU/Linux and BSD...

      Pardon me while I laugh derisively. If this was true, someone could slap together quasi-Mac-quality hardware and throw Ubuntu on it and make a killing undercutting Apple. In the reality-based universe, vanilla BSD and/or Linux (and incidentally, freetard, great way to out yourself as a delusional RMS disciple with that "GNU/Linux" bullshit) are not viable substitutes for an OS and application software which have had real attention paid to usability.

      Last I checked their' brutally over-priced Mac Pro can't even sustain multiple graphics cards since the PSU is too weak.

      Some quality there! *irony*

      You didn't check a thing, because if you had you'd know you're full of shit.

    24. Re:Essentially a walled world by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1
      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    25. Re:Essentially a walled world by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      None of those give you a OSX desktop, so they don't replace a desktop computer. The other response to this that says you can Remote Desktop in to the Mac Mini, doesn't really solve the problem because only one user can connect.

    26. Re:Essentially a walled world by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      iDevices have video out, and support keyboards. (I don't know about mice, but it certainly wouldn't be hard for apple to implement) So, yes. A simple doc that a keyboard and monitor are plugged into, and you have a full desktop via Remote desktop. For iPads, many people wouldn't even need the extra monitor, as the screen would be...OK... for them.

    27. Re:Essentially a walled world by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      OS X is multi-user, isn't it?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    28. Re:Essentially a walled world by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Qt?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    29. Re:Essentially a walled world by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      What does Aqua offer over KDE, or W7 explorer?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    30. Re:Essentially a walled world by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Is it? That I don't know. You can log in as different users, but I was under the impression that that was basically different profiles for access rights. Does anyone here know if you can run multiple users at the same time on a single Mac as a true multiuser system?

    31. Re:Essentially a walled world by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Sadly that's not my experience. I've seen way too many big name OEM boxes that were shoddy to say the least. Often the big problem is that they don't really put much effort into integration (cheapest possible parts combined with whatever driver was available and a bunch of 3rd party software trials on top of that). Then you have driver updates, I've seen a few too many "workstation"/"portable workstation" machines that stopped receiving updates from the manufacturer just a few months after the introduction of the model.

      In my experience Apple takes a lot more care when it comes to these matters (Trolls, please note: I'm not saying they're perfect, just that they put more effort into it than Dell et al).

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    32. Re:Essentially a walled world by Belial6 · · Score: 1
      Your playing the "My shade of gray is better than your shade of gray." game. Virtually major PC manufacturers are building machines that they expect to "Just Work", and they don't expect people to be opening their machines and fiddling with parts. Whether Apple is better about supplying driver or not does not change the fact that they all try to accomplish:

      selling products and systems that are tightly integrated and designed to "Just Work(tm)"

    33. Re:Essentially a walled world by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Its built on UNIX - it is multi-user from the ground up. You can sudo and you can also su to another user in a terminal and run apps as that user.

      You may be thinking of windows, where the multi-user stuff is very poorly done, and an afterthought.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    34. Re:Essentially a walled world by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Can you run multiple desktops at the same time so that two different users can VNC into the machine and each get their own desktop?

    35. Re:Essentially a walled world by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      I've never tried having multiple GUI sessions on OS X myself but to my knowledge (and according to apple.com) it is possible (at least with 10.7).

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    36. Re:Essentially a walled world by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Qt?

      QT is just a UI framework whereas Cocoa spans Aqua (UI), Core Audio (low latency audio recording), Core Image (image filters), Core Animation, Core Video (video filters), Core Data (simplified data storage), fast restore (lion) etc...

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    37. Re:Essentially a walled world by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      So, it sounds like IF it can be done at all, it isn't something that "Just Works". This is the kind of thing that Apple could do that would add real value to their customers.

    38. Re:Essentially a walled world by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      No, it is, according to the operating system manufacturer an included feature. So not an "if". And enabling screen sharing under OS X is far from hard to do.

      I merely stated that I have not myself tried having multiple users with GUI sessions logged in at the same time. That OS X supports multiple logged in users is obvious to anyone who spends more than five seconds looking into the matter (just try "ssh username1@osxmachine" and then "ssh username2@osxmachine", works just as well as it does for any other *nix).

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    39. Re:Essentially a walled world by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is a non starter. Your average Mac users is not going to type ssh anything. If there is not a UI element that they can click on to implement the multi-user mode, it isn't what most Mac users bought a Mac for. If they have to set up config files and type cryptic Unix commands, they might as well be running Linux. Enabling screen sharing IS easy to do. Getting more than one user running their own desktop at the same time seems to be something that isn't easy to do.

    40. Re:Essentially a walled world by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting me. Enabling screen sharing should be all that's necessary to allow multiple remote GUI sessions at once, it does not require using ssh, my example was merely to point out that yes, of course OS X is a multi-user system, that is painfully obvious to anyone who isn't trying really hard to be obtuse.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    41. Re:Essentially a walled world by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      The NT kernel handles concurrent user fairly well, thanks for (not) checking.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    42. Re:Essentially a walled world by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Qt has database connectors, sqlite compatible. Aqua isn't part of that framework, it's the window manager. Explain to me, what the hell are you quoting the other APIs for, they don't have a use in general purpose software. Oh, and, Qt is a platform framework - it covers more than most OSes do, educate yourself. WTH is fast restore? Per app hibernation?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  3. 1 Infinite Loop by tepples · · Score: 2

    one very long hallway connecting endlessly with itself

    In other words, it'll be even more of an infinite loop than Apple's current Infinite Loop campus. Is it even possible for things to be "more infinite"?

    1. Re:1 Infinite Loop by jeffasselin · · Score: 2
      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    2. Re:1 Infinite Loop by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      No. Infinite sets can have different sizes, but they're all equally infinite.

    3. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Take, for instance, the rational numbers and real numbers. Rational numbers are countable infinite, while reals are uncountable infinite. Uncountable infinite sets tend to be larger than countable sets by a factor of about 3-4, although it's gone down a little bit recently since the recession.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    4. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      No, they're not "equally" infinite. They are just all infinite. Aleph Null != other "degrees" of infinity.

    5. Re:1 Infinite Loop by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Uncountable infinite sets tend to be larger than countable sets by a factor of about 3-4, although it's gone down a little bit recently since the recession.

      Still, better than my 401K. How to I transfer funds?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:1 Infinite Loop by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      I dunno. Have you seen the dimensions for this loop? They look pretty finite to me.

      (At least the spatial dimensions - and I'm willing to bet that they'll be finite in the temporal dimension as well.)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    7. Re:1 Infinite Loop by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. "Infinite" is a binary classification -- a set is either finite or infinite. There is no "more" or "less" infinite. (The same is true of "unique".)

      Hence, all things that are infinite are equally infinite, since there are no degrees.

    8. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you've exactly missed the gp's point. please read the link
      provided by the ggp to wiki's aleph number discussion.

      since for each integer, i can pair it with a subset of the
      rational numbers (0,1], say with the bijection n -> 1/n,
      i can say the cardinality of the rationals is greater than
      the cardinality of the integers.

      there's a little bit of sloppiness in saying "more infinite", but
      it's just as sloppy to get knee deep in the mathematics of
      infinity and then claim that infinite is a binary state.

    9. Re:1 Infinite Loop by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      If it goes to 11.

    10. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      They are just all infinite. Aleph Null != other "degrees" of infinity.

      Gregor Cantor says you're wrong.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Bloody hell. Georg Cantor.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, better than my 401K. How to I transfer funds?

      I know a guy who promises great returns to people who aren't interested in knowing where their money is used,
      send money to:

      Bernie Madoff
      Bureau of Prisons Register #61727-054
      Butner, North Carolina

    13. Re:1 Infinite Loop by colinrichardday · · Score: 2

      i can say the cardinality of the rationals is greater than the cardinality of the integers.

      You can say it, but it isn't true. One can map the nonnegative rationals (1-1) into the integers by p/q -> 2^p*3^q, where p=0 or positive, and q is positive; one then maps -p/q -> 2^p*3^q*5.

    14. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Argue with the people who were talking about cardinality. Not me.

      Cardinality is not the same as equality. I mentioned equality only.

    15. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      To be clearer: infinities can be of different magnitudes, yet still infinite. In itself, this has little or nothing to do with cardinality.

      If you select any arbitrary point along an infinite set, it is always possible to define a set (generally via a simple formula, like "times 2") that will generate an infinity that is of a different magnitude, either greater or lesser, than the one under examination.

      Cantor's work describes cardinality only, which is a different matter. That infinities can have different magnitudes (and therefore be unequal) has never been refuted.

    16. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      But again, that's only cardinality. GP was probably incorrect about that. But the magnitude is still provably different, thus the infinities are not "equal"... even if they are of approximately the same order.

    17. Re:1 Infinite Loop by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "magnitude"? They have the same cardinality; they could have the same ordinality if they were ordered in a certain way.

    18. Re:1 Infinite Loop by steve_bryan · · Score: 1

      No, the rational numbers and the real numbers are both infinite, but there is no one-to-one, onto mapping between them. There is an injective mapping of the rationals into the reals. There is even a one-to-one, onto mapping of the rationals to the algebraic numbers (a superset of the rationals containing most of the irrationals you usually encounter). In other words countable infinity (integers, rationals, algebraic) are all "the same" and smaller than uncountable infinity (the reals).

      This digression has about as much relevence to Apple as the prattling about the architecture of Apple's new headquarters.

    19. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      We need a Moebius building.

    20. Re:1 Infinite Loop by lennier · · Score: 1

      Still, better than my 401K. How to I transfer funds?

      Take a finite subset of your monthly paycheck and divide it by zero.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    21. Re:1 Infinite Loop by mikael · · Score: 1

      Is it even possible for things to be "more infinite"?

      A Klein bottle?

      There is a practical intention with the design of donut shaped offices. It encourages employees to meet each other and interact while walking towards places like the entrance or eating areas. Helps with the synergetic process of groupthink.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    22. Re:1 Infinite Loop by tepples · · Score: 1

      That infinities can have different magnitudes (and therefore be unequal) has never been refuted.

      I still don't understand what you mean by magnitude of an infinity as a concept separate from cardinality.

    23. Re:1 Infinite Loop by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, a countably infinite set is smaller than an uncountably infinite one, but both are equally infinite. They're not the same size, but they are equally infinite, because infinite isn't a measure of size. It's a binary adjective -- a set is either finite or infinite, and that's it.

    24. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, the old campus was merely a countable infinite loop, while the new and improved campus is uncountably infinite!

    25. Re:1 Infinite Loop by steve_bryan · · Score: 1

      Well, yes and no. They are both "actually" infinite but from a measure theory standpoint they are not equal. The interval from 0 to 1 has measure 1 and if you remove all the rational numbers from that set it still has measure 1. The removed set, the rationals from 0 to 1 has measure 0. So the uncountable set has measure 1 and the countably infinite set has measure 0. In that sense uncountably infinite sets can be usefully thought of as "bigger" than countably infinite sets. It has literally been decades since I took Royden's course on this topic so I apologize if I've missed anything important.

    26. Re:1 Infinite Loop by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      No, you're quite right. It's a semantic argument. Infinite sets do have different sizes, and some can be said to be bigger than others. However, the term "infinite" doesn't have varying degrees -- the set is either infinite or finite.

    27. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      What I mean is that cardinality is simply the numbering of the elements of the set... the same cardinality simply means that each set has the same number of elements. It has nothing to do with the size or other measure of those elements.

      If one set has the same number of elements as another set, but one set's elements are, individually, twice as big as the other's, can they be said to be "equal" in any real sense? I would argue no.

    28. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      To be more specific, say for set A, each successive element is equal to its cardinal number: 1, 2, 3...

      And for set B, each successive element is its cardinal number squared: 1, 4, 9 ...

      Are these sets "equal"? I should say not.

    29. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      And I would have to ask: why don't you?

      Where have you gotten the idea that cardinality is the only measure of a set?

    30. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Let me try to be more clear:

      I understand that it is common to refer to the "magnitude" of different sets as their cardinality. But that's not what I am referring to (nor is it by any means the only definition of "magnitude").

      I was referring to the relative sizes of the elements of different sets. While I am well aware that infinite sets can be congruent with at least one of their own subsets (actually it is the definition), they are not necessarily (or perhaps even commonly) congruent with ALL of their own subsets.

      Therefore there are infinite sets of equal cardinality that cannot be said to be "equal" in other ways.

    31. Re:1 Infinite Loop by tepples · · Score: 1
      So if two sets have the same cardinality, and you sort them one has bigger elements

      While I am well aware that infinite sets can be congruent with at least one of their own subsets (actually it is the definition), they are not necessarily (or perhaps even commonly) congruent with ALL of their own subsets.

      Two sets under some operations are congruent according to Wikipedia if there is a homomorphism between them, or a mapping that preserves the operations. For example, as I understand it, the interval [-pi/4, pi/4) of the reals under modular addition is a group, and the reals under tangent addition are also nearly a group (except for infinity, which I don't feel like resolving in the space of this comment). A homomorphism maps this interval to the entire real line using the tangent function. So the reals are not only of the same cardinality as an open interval but also congruent.

      So if a set A under one operation is congruent to a subset B under another operation, with a bijection between A and B, is there a rigorous way to determine which has a greater magnitude? You could solve this by linking to an existing accepted definition (e.g. on Mathworld or Wikipedia or some mathematics professor's web site) of the "magnitude" of a set that is not cardinality.

    32. Re:1 Infinite Loop by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      The sets are not equal, as they don't have the same elements, but that doesn't mean that either is "larger" than the other. Would city B be more populous than city A if the residents of the former were twice as heavy as those of the latter? In such a case, we simply look at the number of residents and not their individual sizes.

    33. Re:1 Infinite Loop by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      They're not equal because they have different elements. If you mean something like the sums of the elements of the sets, that might not be helpful for infinite sets, as the sums might not exist.

    34. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The sets are not equal, as they don't have the same elements, but that doesn't mean that either is "larger" than the other. Would city B be more populous than city A if the residents of the former were twice as heavy as those of the latter? In such a case, we simply look at the number of residents and not their individual sizes."

      I understand. My point was simply that cardinality is not the be-all and end-all of infinite sets. They have other properties as well.

    35. Re:1 Infinite Loop by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "So if a set A under one operation is congruent to a subset B under another operation, with a bijection between A and B, is there a rigorous way to determine which has a greater magnitude? You could solve this by linking to an existing accepted definition (e.g. on Mathworld or Wikipedia or some mathematics professor's web site) of the "magnitude" of a set that is not cardinality. "

      Well, I certainly have to apologize for too loosely using the word "congruent", but I don't feel that it is necessary to be quite so literal to get across this concept. If all you want to do is have a pissing contest over semantics, I guess it won't hurt me to let you win, because I don't have the slightest interest.

  4. Who cares? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People who have nothing better to do than criticize some company's proposed building needs to get a life.

    1. Re:Who cares? by Jrono · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who have nothing better to do than criticize some company's proposed building needs to get a life.

      "LA Times architecture critic"

      Yes... architecture critic should stop criticizing architecture...

    2. Re:Who cares? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      As opposed to someone who criticizes someone for criticizing someone ^^

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    3. Re:Who cares? by kestasjk · · Score: 1, Redundant

      But he's not criticizing the architecture.. he's criticizing the effect he thinks the architecture will have on the employees of a technology company.

      Unless he's a psychologist and technology expert, and also has something to back up this crazy notion, it might as well be a Feng-shui guy arrogantly chiming in on the layout of a motherboard.


      (And I say this as an Apple skeptic who realizes that Jobs was, at times, a Feng-shui guy who arrogantly chimed in on the layouts of motherboards with disastrous results)

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:Who cares? by kestasjk · · Score: 2

      As opposed to som-- fuck it

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    5. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was more bugged about him blasting Jobs for not including a credit roll as part of the proposal. I've been in on these meetings and I've never once heard names being dropped about who worked on the project. The council members wouldn't recognize the names of famous architects or design firms so what would be the point? He also bashes it for not really being green without making any specific points except for claiming you'll need a car. I guess he was pissed off that Jobs didn't include a monorail in the design. It was mostly opinion with few if any facts. More "I hate Apple, just because". Jobs made Pixar what it is and saved Apple from a sure death. He deserves some kudos. And no he didn't do it all on his own but what exec has ever done it all himself? He never once claimed he did any of it he simply provided the leadership needed to make it all work. The guy changed computers and even personal electronics for millions of people. It'll be a sad day when he finally passes.

    6. Re:Who cares? by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That actually is what architecture as a field largely thinks about these days. For the past 90 years or so, at least since the publication of Le Courbusier's Toward an Architecture (1923) if not earlier, architecture is about constructing spaces that enable and shape living, work and leisure, and what effects architectural choices have on individuals and societies. It is, yes, also about the placement of load-bearing walls and whether to include decorative gargoyles on the pediment, but those aren't the main things architects and architecture ctitics study. So this article's criticism seems pretty directly within scope: how architecture shapes work and the interaction of workers with the society around them.

    7. Re:Who cares? by sammy+baby · · Score: 2

      What? The guy is a journalist who writes about architecture.

      I understand that you may not give a rat's ass about architecture, or human factors engineering, or Apple, or their recently proposed spaceship building. But seriously? Okay, fine, anyone who writes critically about architecture is a loser with no life. Also, Roger Ebert is a waste of space, and Edward Said is a piker.

    8. Re:Who cares? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are other ways to avoid needing a car on a campus other than including a monorail. Good architects these days notice immediately the transportation requirements created by the architecture, because of the energy, pollution, time, social and beauty degradation that cars bring. Creating a need for cars is certainly not green.

      Jobs deserves and gets plenty of kudos for his tech and biz achievements. But when his perhaps final achievement has problems, especially one at odds with the humanist image his whole career has cultivated, that doesn't deserve kudos. It deserves criticism that points out where the architecture doesn't live up to the standards Jobs created.

      But then, your ramble winds into an early eulogy. You're not talking about architecture. You're just an Anonymous fanboy Coward who detected less than total worship of Steve, and jumped in to save the day.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Who cares? by errandum · · Score: 1

      That's why architects design buildings, and not engineers. They are actually educated to do this sort of thing, believe it or not.

    10. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why /is/ there an architecture critic?

    11. Re:Who cares? by Javagator · · Score: 1

      Professors may need to ponder the "shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm", or at least pretend to, but engineers need to develop innovative products. Different jobs need different environments.

    12. Re:Who cares? by paiute · · Score: 1

      People who have nothing better to do than criticize some company's proposed building needs to get a life.

      "LA Times architecture critic"

      Yes... architecture critic should stop criticizing architecture...

      I like it better when he dances.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    13. Re:Who cares? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      And here you are, criticizing someone else's work although you clearly don't have a clue on what you are talking about. This is the definition of hypocrisy.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    14. Re:Who cares? by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's why architects design buildings, and not engineers. They are actually educated to do this sort of thing, believe it or not.

      The last time an architect tried to design an engineer the results were definitely not "aesthetically pleasing".

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    15. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I believe that Apple has buses going to and from its campus to reduce the need for employees to drive.[1] Microsoft has a similar arrangement, too.
      Presumably they will extend the service to the new campus.
      [1]

    16. Re:Who cares? by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to go that far, but just read the dude's quote in TFSummary:

      "the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

      I know, I *KNOW* that your ears can taste feces. And your eyes, since you're reading that.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    17. Re:Who cares? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Huh. That's interesting. And here I thought that the Architect's job was most to spend expensive hours arguing with the Engineer.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:Who cares? by errandum · · Score: 1

      that was funny

    19. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's insightful about this?
      "Get a life"?
      Derp. Believe it or not (and ignore the latter choice), but building design does, in fact, have an effect on human behavior.

    20. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, the landscape of Silicon Valley keeps reminding me of components on a motherboard.

    21. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow talk about a useless career.

    22. Re:Who cares? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In fact, having read the description of the new office and looked at the photos, I think I'd personally quite enjoy working in a location like that.

      And the criticisms themselves? They, essentially, boil down to "it doesn't force people to socialize with the rest of the community". I mean, seriously:

      "corporations were gaining in wealth and global reach and increasingly fleeing the city for the privacy and elbow room of the suburbs"

      "turn its back on cities and stake a claim on the suburban pastoral idyll — isolated, proprietary, verdant, and disengaged from civic space"

      "precludes the concentration of population that makes public transportation feasible for governments and users"

      "If all you see in your workday are your co-workers and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property," she writes, and you drive to and from work in the cocoon of your private car, "the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

      No shit. We all should live and work like fish in the barrel according to her, I guess.

    23. Re:Who cares? by hjf · · Score: 1

      Only Jobs can pull the RDF, fanboi. Your comment doesn't make any sense.

    24. Re:Who cares? by artor3 · · Score: 2

      You don't understand the Silicon Valley culture. Seeing and chatting with employees of other companies is a common occurrence, whether its on a lunch break or going for a jog or taking the (admittedly awful) public transit. And then when you need to work with people from Company X, if you don't already know them, you might at least know someone else from that company. Not to mention the obvious advantages when it comes time to change jobs -- which is perhaps an advantage that Apple hopes to deny its employees.

      If Apple is really isolating themselves in the burbs, it will be to the disadvantage of their workers.

    25. Re:Who cares? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Because the local Starbucks was already fully staffed.

    26. Re:Who cares? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      It's right down the street from their current headquarters, on land that still has HP's old buildings on it, so it's no more burb than what they are now.

      I hear Samsung is also planning a new headquarters that looks just like it. And Google bought up a cutting edge architect firm which will provide FREE (as in you can build it yourself) blueprints for spaceship buildings. Microsoft, not one to be left out, has announced Windows 10 Xtreme Space Ship Edition will fly in 2018.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    27. Re:Who cares? by BoRegardless · · Score: 0

      Sour grapes by an architect that didn't get in on the design job?

      Apple of the future is going to be a company who has spies aimed at it full time. Maintaining physical and electronic security and safety for their crew is going to be #1 to being able to continue to produce great products that don't get knocked off quickly or even before Apple gets their product out on the market.

      I don't blame Apple for a "walled garden" approach. Looks sensible. Apple will keep other facilities, too, though, so there will be a wide range of buildings in their whole arena of buildings.

    28. Re:Who cares? by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      Unless he's a psychologist and technology expert, and also has something to back up this crazy notion, it might as well be a Feng-shui guy arrogantly chiming in on the layout of a motherboard.

      In that case, it would be interesting to hear what you think the practice of modern architecture is.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    29. Re:Who cares? by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Dog-Cow appears to be an architecture critic critic.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    30. Re:Who cares? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      They're not shutdown -p now's quotes, but those of Louise Mozingo, whom Mr. Hawthorne quotes in his article. The GP doesn't seem to agree with her.

    31. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new microsoft building will run off the edge of the lot so you know there are more buildings across the street.

    32. Re:Who cares? by intheshelter · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the big deal is about this building. It's not like walls weren't invented before. There is clearly examples of prior art in the movie 2001 where people are seen in buildings that have walls.

    33. Re:Who cares? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      People who have nothing better to do than criticize some company's proposed building needs to get a life.

      "LA Times architecture critic"

      Yes... architecture critic should stop criticizing architecture...

      ... and those who can't teach become critics. Note how he appeals to the authority of one who teaches. Teaches "Landscape design"

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    34. Re:Who cares? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      People who have nothing better to do than criticize some company's proposed building needs to get a life.

      I dunno, I think the 'architecture critic' serves as a poster child for the death of print media. BTW, isn't the guy married to a telephone sanitizer?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    35. Re:Who cares? by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      I studied architecture about 20 years ago, and one of our core subjects was Architectural Theory, which explored the way people relate to architecture and it's environs.

      At a simple level it's why some spaces are comfortable and welcome whereas other spaces are uncomfortable and offputting.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    36. Re:Who cares? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Sure it does, and this building is clearly designed to achieve specific behaviors. Specifically to make people enjoy their jobs instead of wanting to kill themselves halfway through every workday.

    37. Re:Who cares? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      ... and yet in those 90 years we've seen a massive increase in cubicles and "open office" layouts.

    38. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are other ways to avoid needing a car on a campus other than including a monorail. Good architects these days notice immediately the transportation requirements created by the architecture, because of the energy, pollution, time, social and beauty degradation that cars bring. Creating a need for cars is certainly not green.

      Jobs deserves and gets plenty of kudos for his tech and biz achievements. But when his perhaps final achievement has problems, especially one at odds with the humanist image his whole career has cultivated, that doesn't deserve kudos. It deserves criticism that points out where the architecture doesn't live up to the standards Jobs created.

      W T F

      Dude, you're stupid. First, if you actually bothered to, I dunno, lift a finger and look at the plans for this place and the materials they presented to the Cupertino City Council, you'd pretty quickly notice that the architects did in fact think about transport, beauty degradation, etc.

      Second, actual avoidance of the need for a car to get to work is pretty damn dependent on the state of public transport in the area you hope to build a building in. For better or for worse, public transport is terrible in the Silicon Valley. About the only thing you can do to reduce transport requirements is build in a place which is easily accessible on foot or bike from housing your employees might be interested in living in, OR build next to one of the scarce bits of commuter rail. The latter is not easy, especially for a campus of the size they want to build, due to the scarcity of the rail and the existing stuff built around it. As for the former, guess what? Cupertino is not exactly high-rise central. It is, for the most part, a mix of low-rise office buildings and residential. And the proposed new building is very close to their existing HQ, so employees who currently live close by and try to avoid using cars have a shot at still doing so.

    39. Re:Who cares? by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      And it's all complete pretentious bullshit. My sister is a graduate school architecture student. Her undergrad degree was in theatre/dance. And yet she is the most practical-minded person in her entire class, including the professors.

      She had one assignment to build a 4' platform in as simple a form as possible. She went out to the woods, cut off a log, and stood it on its end. The professor thought she was a *genius*.

      I had always assumed that architecture was some unique blend of engineering and art.... it always amazes me how much her experience is proving me wrong.

    40. Re:Who cares? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      I hear Samsung is also planning a new headquarters that looks just like it.

      That's a bunch of crap. There are only so many variations of a large technology corporate headquarters building that will properly fulfill their function. And besides, Apple just stole it from this stadium designer:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/20/taiwan-solar-stadium

      Apple never comes up with anything original.

    41. Re:Who cares? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Do you have any online references you can point me to?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  5. Obsessive Analysis by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

    Or maybe it is just an office building and the product is defined by the corporate culture and people who presumably explore the community beyond work and home.

    1. Re:Obsessive Analysis by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that being surrounded by green space is a health benefit, I'd rather be there than their artsy-fartsy-but-doesn't-really-mean-anything "notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm"

      Downtown cores suck. It's called a concrete jungle for a reason.

    2. Re:Obsessive Analysis by arcite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So basically the critic was trying to put into a negative light the fact that the Apple Campus will have lots of trees, be embrace nature, foster a healthy work ethic, and all without contributing to urban sprawl of larger cities. You just can't win can you?

    3. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Ms. Mozingo needs to do less bloviating and more making of sammich's.

    4. Re:Obsessive Analysis by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh what? You're right except for the urban sprawl part; spawning new campuses in (relatively) remote locations drives housing development near them... urban sprawl. What we need is more use of already-extant locations. For example there's lots of malls going empty all over the country; Apple should find a clever way to repurpose some of those. The malls already have all the services needed by an office building, they have more parking than you will need but you can use some of that flat space to put up more buildings. Or, you can rip some out and put in trees, which would be welcomed by the community. When and if the economy recovers to the point that there is a need for new building, they can put up their fancy new campus then and let the mall turn back into a mall.

      The campus will have less trees than it could without a building there, and it is also unnecessary as we have plenty of empty buildings. But reusing existing structures doesn't feed anyone's ego...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "uh what?" right back at you. Apple is doing in-fill development here. It is taking down lots of existing office buildings and associated parking lots and building a much more footprint-efficient design that allows going from less than 10% landscaped space to one that has about 80% landscaped space. They are not bulldozing a farm/forest on the edge of the developed area.

    6. Re:Obsessive Analysis by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Windows. Malls don't tend to have 'em in very great abundance. Which is one of the reasons that they're a sucky place to work.

      The new apple building concept drawing looks like there will be a lot of views of the outside from the offices, and outside isn't just some concrete canyon, it's going to be somewhat natured. From the exterior shots, you can't tell what the workers' point of view will be (maybe they have no sight line to a window unless they're management or something....), but it looks like a great place to work, assuming those great big windows are viewed by everyone.

      It seems like that is the architect's main objection: the facility will not be nearly as shitty as facilities other workers have to deal with, and somehow that unfairness equates to bad design?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The critic doesn't say that the campus should have less green space or more downtown core.

      And N California downtown cores don't suck. Just because yours does doesn't mean others' do.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Obsessive Analysis by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or maybe it is just an office building and the product is defined by the corporate culture and people who presumably explore the community beyond work and home.

      To a layman an office building may be "just an office building", but that doesn't mean that it is true and that the design of a building doesn't have social and psychological impact on those who experience the building and interact with it. It does, and it has a deeper impact on our everyday lives than we, particularly the laymen, are able to recognize, at least at first sight. There is a reason why architecture is more demanding and requires a lot more technical know-how than what is expected from mere designers and even civil engineers. Just for a glimpse, take Kevin Lynch's take on a city's mental map, and try to understand the importance of being able to define a space where you can explicitly shape those mental maps to provide a better living experience to those who use it.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    9. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So basically the critic was trying to put into a negative light the fact that the Apple Campus will have lots of trees, be embrace nature, foster a healthy work ethic, and all without contributing to urban sprawl of larger cities. You just can't win can you?

      Before wasting your time criticizing someone else's work, you should at least try to understand what has been said. After all, odds are that those you are trying to criticize, which happen to have taught architecture at Columbia University and the University of California at Berkeley may actually know a bit more about architecture than you do.

      Regarding your claim, the Christopher Hawthorne's criticism isn't a simplistic and naive tirade on "lots of trees" and other nonsense, which you may only interpret as such if you hadn't read the article (and therefore made your comment to be baseless and knee-jerk gibberish). What Christopher Hawthorne stated is that, contrary to what Jobs' and his minions said, the design for Apple's new campus isn't cutting-edge and "is practically bursting with contradictions". Among the contradictions, Christopher Hawthorne pointed out the following:

      "in many ways it is a doggedly old-fashioned proposal, recalling the 1943 Pentagon building as well as much of the suburban corporate architecture of the 1960s and '70s. And though Apple has touted the new campus as green, its sprawling form and dependence on the car make a different argument.

      He goes further by stating the following obvious but insightful point:

      The more interesting question is whether a place like Cupertino can maintain its low-density sprawl in future decades, as the Bay Area's population continues to grow, and whether the council's enthusiasm for the new Apple headquarters can be read as an endorsement of a car-dependent approach to city and regional planning that might have made sense in the 1970s but will seem irresponsible or worse by 2050.

      For those with a basic understanding the deep impact that urban planning has on our lives, including social and economical, this is rather obvious. If the city accepts this sort of architecture then it will be forced to invest time and money aggravating their urban mobility problem and making their lives harder by making it impossible to provide basic logistic networks that are cheap to maintain and to use. Moreover, if a city is designed so that their inhabitants' lives are limited to a small bubble of reality which contains nothing more than their suburban homes, their cars and their workspaces then this sort of urban plan will end generating generations of sociopaths who are detached from their community and it's affairs. This will force segregation based on where you are employed. This problem and it's negative impact on society is widely known for decades, with the inception of social housing and the problems that it ended up generating in pretty much every country which invested in it, including France, Germany, and even the US.

      So, no. This isn't, as you put it, a petty criticism targetted at Apple, an organization which, by the victimizing comments some people make, is always perfect and is always right. This is a very reasonable and realistic comment on the negative impact that this shiny piece of architecture has and will have on a community, economically and socially. And if you tried to step away from Apple's reality distortion field you would realize that.

    10. Re:Obsessive Analysis by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And yet, there is not a need for ANY development, only remodeling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Obsessive Analysis by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 2

      You don't know what you are talking about, and you reasoning is simplistic. A metropolitan area doesn't necessarily mean a "concrete jungle". See the Athens Charter to start to understand how a metropolitan area can and does improve the lives of those who experience it, as no mindless, unorganized urban sprawl can, no matter how many trees are planted. Only the poorly designed urban areas, or those who lack any rational organization, which is pretty much the case of every major US city, tend to take the shape of a sort of shanty town with skyscrapers. Cities such as Paris, Brasilia and Curitiba were built following a rational urban plan, and they aren't the "concrete jungle" which you mentioned. In fact, cities only take the shape of unorganized, unlivable "concrete jungles" if shiny new buildings are mindlessly accepted by town councils due to their shininess and in spite of any negative influence they have on the environment, economy and community.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    12. Re:Obsessive Analysis by ElrondHubbard · · Score: 1

      Downtown cores suck. It's called a concrete jungle for a reason.

      Downtown cores suck because they're designed that way, by people who hate them because they've never experienced anything better. Older, highly dense city cores in Europe, on the other hand, don't suck -- because thought was put into their design. Read James Howard Kunstler to find out more.

      --
      "The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
    13. Re:Obsessive Analysis by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Don't Apple already make use of Shopping malls with their Apple Stores?

    14. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urban sprawl is already there in Cupertino. There's really no more sprawl space left. As for taking over malls, if Apple continues its growth, there's this old mall nearby that is pretty dead called Vallco. Maybe in 10 years, it will be Apple space ship 2. In its current state, parking is a nightmare. Also, have you seen that sight at HP? It looks like the NSA lives there. Very ugly.

    15. Re:Obsessive Analysis by ianare · · Score: 1

      Washington DC was also built according to a rational urban plan, at least initially. In fact much more so than Paris, which was only slightly rearranged after 1500 years of unorganized building.

    16. Re:Obsessive Analysis by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      new campuses in (relatively) remote locations

      Have you ever been to Cupertino? The new Apple Campus is basically in the middle of city. It's not like they are destroying prime farmland to build this.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:Obsessive Analysis by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      They're building it in the middle of Cupertino - I'm not sure how it can be any *less* "(relatively) remote".

      Ego aside, they're also turning what is tarmac and buildings into a giant park with a building in the middle (and some auxiliary buildings surrounded by trees at the edge). Sure they *could* have just moved into HP's old buildings, but why is it immediately "all about Steve;s ego" if they want to build something to their own specifications? It's not like it's costing them jobs to do it - quite the opposite - it's creating jobs outside of Apple, albeit for the time it takes to build.

    18. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, there's "plenty of empty buildings" in the South Bay, particularly in Cupertino. Yep, they're all over the place. Idiot.

    19. Re:Obsessive Analysis by gutnor · · Score: 1, Interesting

      To a layman an office building may be "just an office building", but that doesn't mean that it is true and that the design of a building doesn't have social and psychological impact on those who experience the building and interact with it.

      Or in simpler term, Architects are not immune to delusion of self worth. Prostitutes in the street and opening time of the asian corner shop also has a social and psychological impact.

      There is a reason why architecture is more demanding and requires a lot more technical know-how than what is expected from mere designers and even civil engineers.

      Funny, the civil engineers say exactly the opposite and boast how they need so much more technical know-how than for mere architects. There is the same BS for any profession using their brain. For developers, work is pure abstract art and so much more challenging than for mere mortals working in a physical world with easy to grasp physics. Math people have the purest thought next to god, Physicist are gods, ...

      At the end of the day, with all my superior brain, I still had to pay a plumber 150 GBP an hour to unclog my toilet to avoid drowning in shit.

    20. Re:Obsessive Analysis by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 2

      Or in simpler term, Architects are not immune to delusion of self worth. Prostitutes in the street and opening time of the asian corner shop also has a social and psychological impact.

      If you believe that the need to design spaces which are able to provide, among other benefits, a healthy (mentally speaking) and comfortable living experience is akin to "prostitutes in the street" then you are both a clueless idiot and needlessly rude. Meanwhile, if you don't understand this and you would like to understand then there is a simple exercise you can do on your own, which is to pull out a sheet of paper, think about the place you live in and just draw a simple diagram of what parts of that place are meaningful to you. If you end up covering some km of urban area with only a couple of scribbles then you live in a place that isn't that good to live in.

      Funny, the civil engineers say exactly the opposite and boast how they need so much more technical know-how than for mere architects.

      I am a civil engineer, mind you, and although I (and other civil engineers) know more about technical such as how to design proper public sanitation networks, structural systems and even the building processes, knowing how to properly define spaces and to adequately plan the urban space are entirely different beasts. That's the job for an architect, and they tend to do it very well.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    21. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bounded by 280, Wolfe, Homestead, and Tantau Ave., and they're building a giant parking garage all along one side. It's concrete and a jungle all in one.

    22. Re:Obsessive Analysis by styrotech · · Score: 2

      I am a civil engineer, mind you, and although I (and other civil engineers) know more about technical such as how to design proper public sanitation networks, structural systems and even the building processes, knowing how to properly define spaces and to adequately plan the urban space are entirely different beasts. That's the job for an architect, and they tend to do it very well.

      Exactly. I initially started doing an Architecture degree before changing to Civil Engineering after realising it was a better fit for my analytical personality.

      I had a profound respect for good architects and it was great to work with them on the rare projects where the client actually let them do their stuff properly. On these sorts of projects the architects and engineers work together collaboratively during the design rather than just handing a design off to the engineers for checking.

      I have noticed though that good architects and engineers have much more respect for each others respective professions than mediocre ones tend to. And I think this is partially due to the kinds of projects they can attract. It's hard to really judge someone elses ability when you don't get to work with them.

      But because so many projects don't allow that kind of teamwork, most architects and engineers don't end up working collaboratively together to gain each others respect. Most projects just have the clients and/or their project managers handing work to architects and engineers in isolation with minimal time for design and nobody really gets an insight into the concerns and design objectives of the other groups.

      Since I've moved to IT/software, I've seen the same dynamics happening here too. eg developers, designers and sysadmins not really respecting each others work when they get handed it in stages by project managers rather than working together during the design stages.

    23. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but a mall is not bulit right for an office building. You could put up a lot of interior walls, but it will still be shoehorning office space into a building designed for another purpose.

    24. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's not in a remote location. The Apple campus is replacing a huge number of existing office blocks. They are to be demolished, the environment will be landscaped, and the single large circular building will take the place of many previous buildings and car parks.

      If you look at the current map of the area it is packed with offices and car parks, with very little vegetation.

    25. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well - let's see: old buildings(s): quite possibly deficiencies like poor insulation, deteriorating water, heating, and AC with retrofitting costs excessive; possibly poor location where (lack of) parking creates issues for employees wishing to drive; perhaps in an area with a higher crime rate, and consequently safety concerns for employees going to/from work; perhaps buildings that are not laid out in a fashion meeting the company's needs, or providing amenities that make employees happier and/or more productive.
      I'm sure that if Cupertino would push that plan, there are many cities, including small towns, that would be elated to get the economic growth from hosting Apple, and would not object that the company won't use "empty buildings".

    26. Re:Obsessive Analysis by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 0

      happen to have taught architecture at Columbia University and the University of California at Berkeley

      Yes, UC Berkeley, where the ugliest building on campus is the architecture building, Wurster Hall. They couldn't even get the name right.

      Or at least it was when I was there, a zillion years ago.

    27. Re:Obsessive Analysis by lennier · · Score: 1

      It's called a concrete jungle for a reason.

      Because there are concrete monkeys swinging from the power cables and concrete hippos in the sewer system?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    28. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new apple campus has nothing to do with urban sprawl. The original, maybe, but not the new. The building is within a close distance to the existing facility, which makes way more sense than building something in another city. The building is on top of what is now parking and an old building, so the ample green space is welcomed and will be used by the many employees of the facility. And, the new building is much higher density than the existing building or buildings around it, and density is a good thing.

      Besides, the new building will not cost much more than would be needed to retrofit a mall into a practical setup. This is a major technology facility, with very specific needs in terms of HVAC equipment, power requirements, and space requirements. You don't just move furniture into the former retail spaces and call it a day.

    29. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      I've noticed it's a trait that the Architecure School is often house in the ugliest building on campus. I'm wondering how much of it is because most large universities only started giving the School of Architecture it's own building the middle of the modernist period.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    30. Re:Obsessive Analysis by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I've always attributed it to the architects showing their disdain for the pedestrian and hoping nobody mentions the emperor is naked.

    31. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abandoned malls in Cupertino? Umm, yah.

    32. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, Apple is reusing an old HP campus. How does that not qualify? And I'm guessing that you've never been to Cupertino or you wouldn't describe it as "remote". It's in deepest silicon valley, and still manages to be a nice place to live. Also, if you had visited the HP campus you would have seen why Apple wanted a new building to replace the motley collection that was there.

    33. Re:Obsessive Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what you are talking about. There is an old HP campus on this site; it is not greenfield development -- they are reusing land that was already developed (and is mostly buildings and parking now, the new campus will have much more green space and trees than the HP campus that was there). It is in Cupertino, which is already densely populated. This is not in a (relatively) remote location, and will not drive housing development near it -- the land near it is already developed.

    34. Re:Obsessive Analysis by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Noticed that myself, especially in American Ivy League campus facilities. Look at Yale's school, for instance. You've got these gorgeous Neo-Gothc buildings, and right in their midst is this horrid concrete brutalist monstrosity that looks like something out of Hellraiser. It's the architecture school, natch.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    35. Re:Obsessive Analysis by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      Urban sprawl is caused *exactly* by building big nice attractive 'campuses' outside of the existing urban area and having everyone drive there.

      It's an excellent way to render transit impractical: instead of having, say, a million people from a reasonably cohesive suburban area wanting to get downtown every morning, you have 10 sets of 10 sets of 10,000 people trying to get from 10 different suburbs to 10 different 'campuses'.

      Slightly counter-intuitively, the way to combat urban sprawl is to build more intensively in existing urban space, not to extend development out ever further and further as every company wants to build its own little pristine mini-country - just as, in previous decades, American families wanted to build their own little mini-castles in vast, sprawling suburbs.

      (The article is an excellent piece of criticism; the 'castle' analogy above is from another excellent piece I read a few years back, which proposed that the reason American suburban homes tend to have tiny, vestigial, fenced-in front gardens is that suburban homes are essentially miniaturized castles in intent.)

    36. Re:Obsessive Analysis by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The current campus is just off the 280 freeway, near the De Anza Blvd exit. The article mentioned that the new one would be 1/2 mile West, which would be almost near the 85 highway. Between De Anza and Mary is essentially a residential area, as well as some places for accessing De Anza College. I'm not seeing how this is accessible. Traffic wise, it would now be easier to get there from the 85 as much as the 280.

      Or are they moving even west of that, almost into Los Altos?

    37. Re:Obsessive Analysis by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I believe it's east of 85. It's replacing a bunch of commercial buildings, with a working population roughly the same as what will replace it, so it's not going to have a big impact on the area (other than looking cooler, and possibly being a nice place to hang out if you're homeless, but who knows what Apple security will be like. YOu could try living in a tree).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. A bit of a stretch by dimeglio · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Architecture is an art. Some like, some don't. It is an interesting viewpoint but trying to link the shape of a building to Apple employees social responsibilities is a bit of a stretch. Especially since most university campuses are cocoons in of themselves yet successfully promote global social responsibilities.

    --
    Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    1. Re:A bit of a stretch by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Especially since most university campuses are cocoons in of themselves yet successfully promote global social responsibilities.

      I agreed with you until this point. At which time I realized the critic of Apple's new campus might have a point. The reason that is the case is that university campuses tend to promote "global social responsibility" that absolves those in them from actually doing anything themselves about the problems around them. The products of university "global social responsibility" demand that the government do something, thus they do not need to dedicate their own resources to attempting to address the problems themselves.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:A bit of a stretch by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Finally some real Teabagger anarchism.

      Universities don't address problems with themselves or the world around them? Did you graduate from Apex Tech or something?

      People in (American) universities often learn that our government is the people organized to do things to protect our rights. People these universities produce are more likely to actually vote and otherwise participate in public life. And are more likely to learn history and reason which tell us that without government, we get anarchy that corporations (and their version without state limits) quickly fill.

      You seem to be living in a cocoon yourself.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:A bit of a stretch by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's not simply "the shape of a building". The architecture determines the limits of the function, which limits the activities of the people. Good architecture is well understood to strongly influence the overall tendencies of the activities of the people who use it. Architecture puts its users into a frame of mind, which can strongly influence social attitudes and behaviors well beyond its walls.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:A bit of a stretch by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      There's actually considerable criticism of that aspect of university architecture as well, the "playground for educated kids w/o jobs" aspect of the American 4-year residential college. Some universities are more integrated with an urban area, as is more typical in Europe, where e.g. the University of Paris is deeply integrated into Parisian life, both physically and culturally, rather than being located in a separated campus.

    5. Re:A bit of a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet was invented at a university. Most medical research is done in universities. Also, GP is wrong in general; many universities (even at the Ivy League level) are in urban centers.

    6. Re:A bit of a stretch by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I love the way you call me an anarchist because I don't believe that the government is the best means to take care of people in need. I happen to believe that the purpose of government is to maintain order. The best way to take care of people in need is for individuals to help other individuals.
      As to the idea that with limited government corporations have more power, I have a question. Are corporations more, or less, powerful today than they were 50 years ago? Second question, does the government have more, or less, regulations today than it did 50 years ago?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:A bit of a stretch by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Government has more regulations now that 50 years ago. But fewer of them are effective at limiting corporations. Vastly more of those regulations were written by the corporations, especially since Reagan and then the 1990s Republican Congress.

      You're an anarchist because your imaginary Teabagger government, as we move closer to it, opens more and more anarchy into which corporations move.

      Your questions do answer one of my questions, though. Evidently you are an Apex Tech graduate. Or at least applicant.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:A bit of a stretch by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0

      What is "Apex Tech"? Oh never mind, I just googled it and see that it is located in New York City. I understand now, you are one of those people who have spent their whole life in New York City and think that makes you cosmopolitan.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:A bit of a stretch by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Is there an internet Meme similar to Goodwin's law, but involves invoking Reagan in a political debate? If there isn't, there should be.

  7. Shocking... look out the window and see green? by TimTucker · · Score: 2

    Seems a little backward that there would be complaints that workers might look out their windows and see grass, trees, and other natural things.

    Everything I've read on productivity and mental health would suggest it would be beneficial to have a less "urban" view out your window.

    1. Re:Shocking... look out the window and see green? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      The review doesn't say the grass and trees are bad. It says that the fact that workers will see only Apple's grass and trees is bad. It's the disconnection, not the greenery that's bad. And the review explains why, in brief but meaningful detail.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Shocking... look out the window and see green? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The review doesn't say the grass and trees are bad. It says that the fact that workers will see only Apple's grass and trees is bad. It's the disconnection, not the greenery that's bad. And the review explains why, in brief but meaningful detail.

      Well my understanding is that unless Apple wants to move their headquarters to the middle of a state park or something, staying in Cupertino, CA gives them few choices on who's trees and grass they are allowed to see. The proposed site currently contains office buildings with some trees near a freeway in the middle of an urban setting. Would the reviewer prefer Apple to leave mostly concrete there or simply move into the current site with no change? Basically what other companies like Microsoft, Google, etc do.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Shocking... look out the window and see green? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 2

      You failed to understand what has been said. There is absolutely no problem with seeing green when looking out of an office's window. The problem which has been pointed out is that this sort of "let's build an isolated compound in the middle of nowhere" attitude to urban planning and architecture forces the people to dissociate themselves with their community and also the world. This forces people to live in a bubble which comprises of their home, their car and their office. This is an incentive to sociopathy and the lack of a meaningful personal life. Haven't you ever heard of the heavy toll that the dreaded commute takes on anyone? And there's also the economical problem that this causes on everyone, by relying on personal transportation and long, saturated public highways to be able to drive between home and work.

      This problem has been recognized in decades, if not over a century. A solution has already been widely recognized and publicized, in the form of the Athens Charter. Yes, it is possible to have a metropolitan area that lets people "look out their windows and see grass, trees, and other natural things." So, why insist on this sort of plan which has a known profound negative impact on society?

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    4. Re:Shocking... look out the window and see green? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      " an isolated compound in the middle of nowhere" - if by that you mean "in the middle of Cupertino, about 10 minutes from their current HQ, surrounded on all sides by the rest of the city because it's right in the middle of the city" then I guess I can see your point... possibly.

      Essentially if this was in NYC, it would have been the equivalent of building it in Central Park (except that currently the location has HP's old office buildings and a giant parking lot instead of fields and trees)

    5. Re:Shocking... look out the window and see green? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the powers that be like status quo.

  8. So what? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

    Yeah and...so what? Is that a fancy way of saying that office workers should work in the 'hood so, what, I feel some personal responsibility for fixing it? Does that mean I need to work in the hood so I can stare at it all day?

    'If all you see in your workday are your co-workers and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property,

    Of course I see my coworkers when I'm at work. That's why they call it work. That's what I'm there to do. And if my workplace can be nice and in nature, hey, cool.

    Look, I'm not an Apple fan. I give them shit for all kinds of things. Building a nice work environment for their employees is not on the list of things I will give them shit for. And I don't see it as the job of any company, or any employee, to intentionally increase their connection, proximity, or exposure to increasing urban density. Some people like dense urban areas, some don't, but it's not anybody's responsibility to specifically increase density.

    This is predictable coming from an urban paper like the LA Times. They see concrete and steel as desirable. Green things are to be assaulted at all turns. But there are others of us who like trees, shade, grass, and other nice things. The goal isn't to be disconnected from anything - it's to be able to hear something other than traffic noise, and see something other than dirty man-made surfaces while at work.

    Hey, I think it sounds nice. I think the LA Times needs to go camping and discover that there's more to life than concrete.

    1. Re:So what? by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think it's a beautiful building, and really like that the parking, etc is underground. I still think it's Steve Jobs tribute to himself, but he has earned it, to a degree. A corporate culture for social responsibility, etc can be fostered in better ways than the architecture of your building.

    2. Re:So what? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The critique didn't say anything about "the hood", by which you mean some ghetto. Cupertino doesn't have "the hood". The "collective metropolitan realm" is lots of other rich, high-end IT corporations and the other businesses that support them. But that realm has some diversity: other people who aren't working on Apple's stuff. Not getting Apple's specific corporate values or outlook. It might or might not have dirty manmade surfaces, concrete and steel. It doesn't really have density, except in the corporate arcologies like Apple's. It does have other people, with other points of view. Which is healthy. Monoculture isn't healthy, no matter how green it is.

      Why do you fear the hood, that you surely have managed to avoid without an Apple architect, so much that you see it lurking in the shadows of an architecture review that doesn't have it? Is it your guilt over not fixing it? Because the only place your complaint could have come from is inside your own psychology. Not the review you're using as a way to get it out there in front of us.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why do you fear the hood"

      because it's full of niggers

    4. Re:So what? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Why do you fear the hood, that you surely have managed to avoid without an Apple architect, so much that you see it lurking in the shadows of an architecture review that doesn't have it?

      Of course it doesn't. Because that's not how academics (like the one cited) speak. I'm reading between the lines on that comment about "shared responsibility" for the "urban realm". While the article deals with Cupertino, that line was lifted from a book that wasn't about Apple. So the author of that book had something else in mind entirely. It seems pretty clear what the author is saying - she's blaming corporations for "turning their backs" on cities, which encourages their employees to drive to work, and then by providing them with nice places, it keeps them from engaging with the urban core. That's what she's talking about with regard to the "shared responsibility", "collective", and "metropolitan realm".

      The LA Times writer then makes a specific link from that analysis to Apple, to criticize them for a campus that isn't sufficiently urban. The connection is clear - he thinks that companies shouldn't build employees nice places to work so that they can have an opportunity to experience the problems around them, so that they might be compelled to fix them. If that's not the point, then the article is simply pointless rambling and a random citation from some professor at Berkeley.

      My questions are simple: What does 'urban' mean in this context? Why should it be increased? What problem is it solving, and for whom? And whose job is it to fix it?

      Is it your guilt over not fixing it?

      Nope. I didn't make the problem.

      Because the only place your complaint could have come from is inside your own psychology. Not the review you're using as a way to get it out there in front of us.

      Yay, another armchair internet psychologist practicing without a license! You're pretty far offbase there - "Doc".

      Monoculture isn't healthy, no matter how green it is.

      I'd agree, and if that were the crux of the article, I'd wholeheartedly agree with it. But it wasn't. All they had was one throwaway line about interacting with your coworkers - which is, I'll repeat again, *what they pay you to do*. Instead, the article focused on urban density and greenspace, not corporate culture. All of the harms they claim were to society from not having the claimed advantages of urbanization. None of the harms dealt with the disadvantages of monoculture, which would be incurred by the company.

      So we're back where we started. Why is density a good thing? Who does urban density help? Why should that be so important that a company should be attacked for daring to build a campus that isn't dense?

    5. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > and really like that the parking, etc is underground.

      Or perhaps there is no parking facility and employees have to use public transportation.

      Oh, Apple's "social responsibility" doesn't stretch that far. Silly me. Return to your personal pollution vehicles.

    6. Re:So what? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      But that realm has some diversity: other people who aren't working on Apple's stuff. Not getting Apple's specific corporate values or outlook. It might or might not have dirty manmade surfaces, concrete and steel. It doesn't really have density, except in the corporate arcologies like Apple's. It does have other people, with other points of view. Which is healthy. Monoculture isn't healthy, no matter how green it is.

      And how is this different from working for MS, HP, Google, IBM or a number of different companies tech or not that have their own campuses? And how is this different from working at Apple today? The critique of the plans assumes that the building is the only contributing factor to this effect; it is not today and will not be in the future.

      Reading the article, the critic seems to go out of his way to nitpick on little things. Jobs wasn't asked and didn't mention the name of the architects which according the critic was displayed on the plans anyways. He also criticizes the building as being car dependent. The last time I checked California was a car dependent state and how is it the responsibility of Apple to install mass transit. Apple can design based some notion of fantasy but if mass transit isn't a reality anywhere in the near future, can you blame them for being practical about that aspect?

      Certainly everyone can have their opinion but it's not the first time people have been wrong on the pyschological aspects of a building. There was much opposition to the Vietnam War Memorial when the design was first unveiled. Many thought the simple design was "a black gash of shame" and that it wasn't conventional enough. Today it is the most visited war memorial and much of the controversy has disappeared.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one code way better when I see homeless pushing shopping carts around.

  9. As usual, when it comes to something Apple does... by curmi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...Tall Poppies.

  10. Like the last quote by arcite · · Score: 1
    "The proposed building is essentially one very long hallway connecting endlessly with itself."

    You cold say it's one infinite loop.

    Thanks I'm here all night! Try the veal!

  11. Analysis is not criticism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's a big difference between analysis and criticism. The article is analysis. It presents the facts, considers and examines them, and then reports on the findings.

    What you just wrote is criticism. It is based solely upon an emotional outburst, with complete disregard for fact, and with absolutely no thinking involved.

    In case you're not yet able to comprehend these concepts, this comment that you're reading now is analysis.

  12. That's one way to get attention... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    Architecture is art. Some will like it, some won't. Like art, if it generates discussion, that is good. You can be sure that any "architecture critic" who has something negative to say about the new Apple HQ will receive a lot of press attention.

    .
    But I have to wonder, was the purpose of the critique to be ego-building for the author?

    1. Re:That's one way to get attention... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The purpose of the critique was to discuss, and to generate more discussion, by someone who knows architecture. Clearly the purpose was also to help architecture serve people better, by improving architecture.

      Your critique does nothing but try to bring yourself more attention. It does nothing to improve anyone or anything. You're projecting.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  13. Another space by jovius · · Score: 1

    The point seems to be that the urban design (of Cupertino) is about to promote individual space rather than collective responsibility for the society and the environment.

    The building itself is a detachment. It's essentially a decentralized and non-hierarchical design. The focal point is not in the managers but in people around you. The empty space is there to be filled with the collective ideas and thoughts. The shortest distance to the other side is via a nature oriented space where people can meet up. The values promoted by the design itself are distinct from typical offices.

    It's evident that the building facilitates innovation. And like for many a innovator the external world is slightly distanced.

    1. Re:Another space by Macgrrl · · Score: 2

      I'm uncertain how much information has been made available to the general public, but I would have thought that the way the spaces flow internally will have as much if not more of an impact on the daily experiecne of the workers.

      I currently work in a building on an intersection of two major streets in the CBD of Melbourne. On days that I bring my lunch (which I should do more frequently anyway for health and financial reasons) I barely interact with the environment around me. I catch public transport to and from the building and am deposited within 200 meters of the front door. The only interaction I have in the local area is a group of food outlets at the base of a neighbouring building and a gourmet chocolate shop around the corner. I live in the suburbs and do most of my shoping etc... there.

      From a spatial point of view, I couldn't be more integrated with my environment, I need to move through it on foot and by tram daily. However I have virtually no connection to it other than scenery as I move to and from the building where I spend my time, mostly at one desk looking at computer monitors. The only wondows are in the management offices and look out at other high rise buildings.

      While I understand the connectivity that the critic is suggesting a more urban design may afford, given the sheer size of the complex, it was always going to be introspective for most users rather than deeply interactive with the surrounding environs. People generally don't go to work to chat with their neighbours, and the type of poeple like to be working at Apple are likely to be selected for more driven personalities than the norm.

      Buildings can certainly shape interactions by creating affordances, however corporate culture is likely to have a much greater affect on staff behaviours than whether the building is housed in a park or in a tower downtown.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  14. Re:As usual, when it comes to something Apple does by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    "You're just jealous 'cos I'm smarter," used to sound stupid in the playground. It's the battle cry of the populist appealing to the mediocre to join the "winning team".

    But since the '80s it's become some sort of circular business philosophy: if you're rich you must be good; if you're good you deserve to be rich.

  15. Can take anyone seriously that writes by trout007 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

    What a bunch of crap. I didn't realize that Apple had any responsibility to a "collective metropolitan realm". It has a responsibility to the shareholders. And lucky for the "collective metropolitan realm" Apple also pays a ton of taxes.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Can take anyone seriously that writes by vadim_t · · Score: 2

      Yes it does, as do you and everybody else who lives in a society. Go move to a cabin in the woods if you don't like it.

      Regarding taxes, I recall them trying to figure a way to pay less. Which is unsurprising, it's the same thing all corporations do.

    2. Re:Can take anyone seriously that writes by sjames · · Score: 1

      It actually has MORE responsibility to the "collective metropolitan realm" and to society in general than it does to the shareholders. That's why all corporate charters exist contingent on being in the public interest (not just in the interest of the shareholders). It's just that corporate America excels at shirking that responsibility and our courts allow it.

  16. So is the reverse true? by Aquitaine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you share a building with tons of other companies, and if the view out your window is a busy thoroughfare, is 'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm' near at heart and therefore contributing to some architectural faux-topia?

    Oh wait, that's New York City, where nobody looks you in the eye and if somebody says 'Good Morning' to you then you get ready to defend yourself. 'Shared responsibility in a collective metropolitan realm' indeed. Or Los Angeles, where there are no thoroughfares because everybody drives everywhere anyway.

    I also like the posts to the effect of 'architecture is art and discussing art is good.' I guess, but seriously, an 'architecture critic' for a newspaper? Theatre critics are at least answering the question 'should I go see this show,' but wtf is an architecture critic doing? 'Should I go hang out at this corporate campus?'

    1. Re:So is the reverse true? by russotto · · Score: 1

      If you share a building with tons of other companies, and if the view out your window is a busy thoroughfare, is 'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm' near at heart and therefore contributing to some architectural faux-topia?

      I work for Google in New York, which is exactly as you describe. So far the experience has not even dented my stone cold individualist sensibilities.

    2. Re:So is the reverse true? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The last time I went to NYC, I put that to the test and actually engaged random people in conversation. They were a bit surprised but quite friendly.

      As for the rest, it is possible to have a nice greenspace around but not have the building look like a fortress keeping the rabble out.

    3. Re:So is the reverse true? by Aquitaine · · Score: 2

      I was a New Yorker for many years and would never suggest that they aren't friendly (and I'd take a New Yorker any day over a random LA stranger).

      Friendly, yes. 'conscious of shared responsibility in a collective metropolitan realm' ... they'd punch you in face because you'd deserve it.

    4. Re:So is the reverse true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wait, that's New York City, where nobody looks you in the eye and if somebody says 'Good Morning' to you then you get ready to defend yourself. 'Shared responsibility in a collective metropolitan realm' indeed.

      That's some sort of nonsense pop-culture-based view of what New York is like. I've been in NYC for three years, and have said and received many a "Good Morning" without any fisticuffs. I even dropped my wallet in the subway once and it was returned to the ticket agent. It's a pretty friendly city.

    5. Re:So is the reverse true? by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      Just because someone doesn't like a description of themselves which is, shall we say, couched in a somewhat intellectual vocabulary does not make the description untrue. I'd say New Yorkers certainly are 'conscious of shared responsibility in a collective metropolitan realm', as are proud inhabitants of just about any city with a long history and a strong identity. How many people say they'd never live anywhere but New York? What was all that pomp and circumstance on TV over the weekend about how great New York (and, particularly, the Fire Department of New York) is? Why does Dave Letterman open every show with 'Live from New York, the greatest city in the world!' to rapturous applause? As long as you're not standing near anyone too blue collar, you can say "because New Yorkers are conscious of shared responsibility in a collective metropolitan realm". If you are, you can say "because New York fucking rules", and you'll be saying pretty much the same thing...

    6. Re:So is the reverse true? by Aquitaine · · Score: 1

      "because New York fucking rules", and you'll be saying pretty much the same thing...

      Not in the least. One is a direct endorsement (Which, having lived there, I would gladly approve of.) The other is academic euphemism, all wind and no meaning. New Yorkers do tend to love New York (as do other people living in most decent cities, as you pointed out). It's one thing to approve of your city and have that in common with your neighbor. It's quite another to then suggest that you have a responsibility to that city to build a private structure that puts everyone inside in contact with everyone outside because hey, we love this town!

      That might be a nice perk, but the point of an office complex is to do the job the company does. There is also an aesthetic argument toward not making private property an eyesore, of course, just as every homeowner's association wants to do. But 'shared responsibility in a collective metropolitan realm'? This is only intellectual in the modern, void-of-intelligence sense of 'intellectual.' It's flowery nonsense that is disconnected from anybody's everyday life, blue collar or white.

  17. Cupertino Has No Grit, Dirt or Crime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

    you-need-more-grit-and-dirt-and-crime

    There is no grit, dirt or crime in Cupertino, or anywhere near it, until you get to East Palo Alto or downtown San Jose. A more open Apple campus interconnected with the rest of its neighborhood would get more clean, shiny, happy people. But at least people from outside Apple, tired for different reasons. With some different perspectives, some of which might not even be IT. Some might not even be corporate. That exposure would humanize the day, not corporatize it in every way.

    And since Apple's products are so personal, more diversity in the environment its people produce from would also inform the products we get from it.

    But then, this is the company that gave us the white head wires that indicate the wearer is in their own personal universe, totally tailored by and for themselves.

    Apple has become "narcissism for the rest of us", in a society increasingly insistent in seeing nothing but itself in a retouched mirror. The subtitle to this story shows the fear of the outside that nerds have raised to a high art.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Cupertino Has No Grit, Dirt or Crime by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      The question is - given the size of the development and the concentration of staff being 'housed' there, would a diferent design result in a significantly diferent level of interaction with the surrounding community?

      Over a number of years working for small and large employers, I have typically found that when I've worked for a small employers I have far more interactions with non-colleagues. When I work for large employers I interact with colleagues all day with a transit leg on either end and a probable visit to the supermarket on the way home.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  18. Totally misses the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The objective of the entire project is to provide a place to design cool shiny new Apple stuff. It is not to connect with urbanites. It is not to get some "notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm". For that matter, I think I would call BS on that "shared responsibility" thing anyway... it is NOT my fault (country boy here - 6 acre back yard and I think it's kinda small) - nor Apple's - that you inner-city-urban types can't get your act together. It is not to promote some sort of "social agenda".

    Apple has succeeded by expressly *not* doing what the critics suggest... why would one think that they would change their winning formula now?

    P.s - note that I work from home over the internet so, no, I'm not spewing out some horrendous carbon footprint either.

  19. Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem isn't with downtown cores. The problem is with how Americans tend to build them. The "concrete jungle" you speak of is a uniquely-American mistake.

    Of course such downtown areas will be shitty and imbalanced if you only have downtowns where nobody lives, and people only come from the suburbs to work there from 0900 to 1700 on weekdays.

    But if you do it sensibly, like is done in Europe, Asia and even American-like countries like Canada and Australia, you end up with excellent areas that are very livable. People end up living downtown, rather than just working there. Because of this, there are often extensive parks and green space. There is nightlife. There is a community spirit that you just don't find in the suburbs.

    Now, this sort of a downtown area does depend on some things that many Americans mistakenly consider "socialist" or even "communist", like good public transit. That's why America only has a few good downtown areas, and they are always in older cities like Chicago and New York City. Americans today have such a warped view that they probably couldn't implement a good downtown, even if they tried their hardest.

    1. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by macshit · · Score: 1

      Somebody mod parent up, it's an insightful and well-reasoned response; a shame it was posted by AC...

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    2. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Pubic transport is where you sit in someone elses filthy cum, hair gel mystery excretion and are trapped until you get to your destination 20 times as long as it by car.

      A cost study done in 2009 states that Indianapolis would have saved half a billion if it bought every rider a car and 5 years of gasoline.

      You propose good socialist vorker bugs on a stinking bus. Europe uses force to achieve this. It's creeping into some US urban stink holes but fortunately not all.

    3. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But if you do it sensibly, like is done in Europe, Asia and even American-like countries like Canada and Australia, you end up with excellent areas that are very livable.

      You might want to be more specific than that. I lived in Canada - Vancouver, specifically - for 2 years, and its downtown is as much a "concrete jungle" as Seattle, where I live now.

    4. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't with downtown cores. The problem is with how Americans tend to build them. The "concrete jungle" you speak of is a uniquely-American mistake.

      Of course such downtown areas will be shitty and imbalanced if you only have downtowns where nobody lives, and people only come from the suburbs to work there from 0900 to 1700 on weekdays.

      But if you do it sensibly, like is done in Europe, Asia and even American-like countries like Canada and Australia, you end up with excellent areas that are very livable. People end up living downtown, rather than just working there. Because of this, there are often extensive parks and green space. There is nightlife. There is a community spirit that you just don't find in the suburbs.

      Now, this sort of a downtown area does depend on some things that many Americans mistakenly consider "socialist" or even "communist", like good public transit. That's why America only has a few good downtown areas, and they are always in older cities like Chicago and New York City. Americans today have such a warped view that they probably couldn't implement a good downtown, even if they tried their hardest.

      Oh please. Your overly-generalized assumptions are totally incorrect. All of the cities I have visited in Australia and Europe are no different from the cities in the USA. There are plenty of "concrete jungles" all over Europe. There are shops, apartments, parks, galleries, restaurants, "night life" etc all over "downtowns" in the USA and they are quite livable. I personally live in the suburbs because I do not want to deal with all of the hassles of living downtown next to the foolishness that you praise.

    5. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      A cost study done in 2009 states that Indianapolis would have saved half a billion if it bought every rider a car and 5 years of gasoline.

      [citation needed] Can't find what you're talking about

      You propose good socialist vorker bugs on a stinking bus. Europe uses force to achieve this.

      LOL

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What a load of crap, modded up by Americans who long for a better world, and Euros who imagine the US as a hellhole. I've been to more European cities than I have fingers, and the only one that had substantially more greenspace than the US was Rome, and that's just because it had the good fortune to be built atop the ruins of an ancient civilization.

      And even if we make believe that Europe is some idyllic paradise, the concrete jungle is "uniquely American"? Have you ever seen the streets of Taiwan or Korea or India? You think they have tons of green space lying about?

      Go on Google Maps and look at NYC compared to London. The only difference is that the Hudson is blue, whereas the Thames is a distinctly British shade of "muck".

    7. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      But if you do it sensibly, like is done in Europe, Asia and even American-like countries like Canada and Australia, you end up with excellent areas that are very livable.

      Please don't cite Canada as an example. Downtown Montreal is a poverty-ridden pigsty and everything is (literally) falling apart.

    8. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Lots of downtowns are changing. Look a the "new eastside" area in chicago, was a trainyard, now is a park/playground/dog park surrounded by condos and apartments. The business district core is about 4 blocks west.

    9. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by EdZ · · Score: 1

      European cities (London, for example) are that way because many of them have been in the same place for several hundred, if not a few thousand years. Basically, there's a lot of legacy cruft that has to be kept running and that tends to make everything spread out.

    10. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also say that statement is a load of crap. I had the misfortune to work in downtown Toronto for
      8+ years. Nothing but concrete. I couldn't wait to get out of there at the end of the
      day.

    11. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by j-beda · · Score: 3, Informative

      The number of people living within walking distance of the downtown "core" in Vancouver is significantly higher than in Seattle (at least on a percentage basis). The whole "west end" of Vancouver houses about 45,000 out of 640,000 of Vancouver residents as only one example - Coal Harbour, the "East Side", Yaletown and False Creek house a bunch of people within walking distance of the financial and shopping and entertainment districts in the downtown. The downtown does have some non-residential regions, but there are a lot of "living areas" in the downtown - see the links to downtown neighbourhoods at Wikipedia:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Vancouver

      With that said, Canada has repeated much of the same errors in city planning as has happened in much of the US, resulting is similar suburban sprawl and inner-city urban decay.

      In comparing Vancouver and Seattle, I have heard a few times that Seattle planners look to Vancouver as an example of the benefits of not having a major highway system in the city - it has promoted the growth of alternative commercial centres (in Burnaby, Surrey, Abbotsford), and limited the distances people commute (though not the amount of time). Highways are good for getting stuff from one city to another, but when they enable people to travel huge distances daily they tend to fragment the development of a sense of local community and result in huge environmental costs.

    12. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by westlake · · Score: 1

      Of course such downtown areas will be shitty and imbalanced if you only have downtowns where nobody lives, and people only come from the suburbs to work there from 0900 to 1700 on weekdays.

      But if you do it sensibly, like is done in Europe, Asia and even American-like countries like Canada and Australia, you end up with excellent areas that are very livable. People end up living downtown, rather than just working there.

      The average price for an apartment condo in Toronto is $355,513 CDN. The detached home $597,593 CDN. Detached home values in Toronto plunge, condo prices rise [August 18]

      With the exception of Manhattan Island, American cities have never approached the densities common in Europe and Asia.

      They are very young, most of them. The creation of the steamboat, the railroad, the streetcar and the automobile. Suburbanization began early. That is why you build the Brooklyn Bridge.

      When the Jewish immigrant on the Lower East Side spoke of moving his family into "better rooms," this is what he meant.

      The incredibly livable, dense, American "downtown" you imagine has always been more than half fantasy.

    13. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You propose good socialist vorker bugs on a stinking bus. Europe uses force to achieve this. It's creeping into some US urban stink holes but fortunately not all.

      You got that right.

      Stockholm resident here. Man, it's terrible. Haven't owned a car since I moved here. The government here forces me not to have one by making it possible for me to get pretty much anywhere in the greater metro area in, say, 45 minutes or less, just about anytime. I can get to the downtown office on Södermalm in about half the time it would take me to drive there. Costs me about a hundred bucks a month (790 SEK currently) for a 30-day unlimited pass for the subway, surface commuter rail, buses, and ferries--how dare they charge me less than I'd spent on petrol just to get back and forth between home and work. What's worse, all those vehicles are generally clean and well-maintained.

      Damn that government! Damn them all to Hell!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    14. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by sjames · · Score: 1

      OP specifically named NYC and Chicago as exceptions.

      I will say that in Atlanta, the areas that have residential mixed in tend to be the places to go at night while there's nothing to see in the downtown office park.

    15. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by shilly · · Score: 1

      Erm. The GP specifically excluded older cities like NYC from his general case. Compare Houston or San diego to London... And London has the royal parks, the Heath, clapham common, etc. It's got tons of green space considering 11m people live there. And the tube or a bike is far quicker for most journeys than a car.

    16. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by sunspot42 · · Score: 2

      A cost study done in 2009 states that Indianapolis would have saved half a billion if it bought every rider a car and 5 years of gasoline.

      And did the ding-dongs who performed this alleged study determine how much worse traffic would be if all the cum filth mystery hair gel excreters were given their own cars to piddle around in? I'm guessing probably not. However, I've experienced a real-world example of what happens when public transit networks shut down in supposedly auto-centric cities. I was in Los Angeles about a decade ago when their transit system went on strike. My regular 20 minute, 11 mile drive home from Monterey Park to Downtown LA was transformed into a three hour bumper-to-bumper gridlock hell.

      That's because roads can only carry so many cars, and when you tip them past a certain threshold total gridlock results. Building new roads (or expanding existing ones) is far, far more expensive than simply packing more people onto existing roads via buses (or utilizing rail to haul even greater passenger densities).

      Of course, if you provide lots of affordable housing near where people actually work, the need for both automobiles and mass transit declines. You're starting to see the urban cores of numerous American cities revive as housing becomes available within them again (due to loft and apartment conversions of old commercial space). Downtown Los Angeles is a great example of this - I think almost as many people pack into the enormous downtown restaurant Bottega Louie on a Friday night as lived downtown when I left there in 2004. While some drive in, many live in those converted spaces, as well as in numerous new apartments and condos built over the past decade. In dense population centers like that, private automobiles make little sense.

    17. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you paint with a ridiculously broad brush. First, there are MANY American cities that are wonderfully livable. (Hint: not all of them are called a city; for example Arlington County, Virginia.) Second, there are quite a few cities in Asia that have lots of residents but would not be called "excellent areas that are very livable" by most middle-class folks. Third, the "concrete jungle" also arose, in part, from economic and social factors that never really applied in Europe, and have not until recently been applicable in Asia.

    18. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What a load of crap, modded up by Americans who long for a better world"

      HAHAHAHAHAHA

      You here all week man? I got some friends who just HAVE to see you live.

    19. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Most engineering firms aren't in downtown cores anyway. Those big sky scrapers are mostly financial oriented firms, or at least front offices where people don't actually do any creating.

    20. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by khallow · · Score: 0

      In other words, the GP specifically excludes the cities that he has a bit of knowledge about. San Diego is a particularly poor example. I would wager that San Diego has more green space than any European city of its size or larger (of which, from glancing at Wikipedia, there are probably just over a dozen such cities) and it is fairly close to a national forest with about 1,900 square kilometers of area (which I gather is larger than London just by itself).

      And that brings up one of the strengths of US cities. You can't just count the green space in the city proper, but also the green space near the city. The US easily beats European cities once you include that.

    21. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I can't claim to have traveled extensively in Europe, but visiting England, most of my time spent in London, I say BS. London was as much of a crappy place to be downtown as American cities, and the public transportation stunk of urine, was running empty half the time, and uncomfortably over packed at others. It also was not reliable, as I would periodically find subway stations closed when I went to go and enter. London didn't seem much different than any American city other than most people spoke with an English Accent and the money looked different. Well, OK, the museums were cooler.

    22. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Pubic transport is where you sit in someone elses filthy cum, hair gel mystery excretion and are trapped until you get to your destination 20 times as long as it by car.

      Cool story bro. It takes me 4 minutes to walk to the Skytrain station from my house and 12-13 minutes to ride the train to work. In total, it takes me less than 25 minutes to get to work in the morning from door to door. That includes being choosy about which train to get on. It would take considerably longer to drive a car into work and costs a lot more per month to park the car than the 81 dollars that the one zone monthly pass costs me. Now this is my experience commuting into Waterfront Vancouver from East Van but your experience might be worse in other cities. Have you actually taken a close look at what your options are? Is there no rapid transit where you live?

      Most of the newer trains (blue ones) are pretty clean but the subway type trains have seen better days. The really should take some of them out of service for a good cleaning once a month at least.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    23. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by tyrione · · Score: 1

      You're truly high if you think NY is laid out like London.

    24. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... if you continue reading his post (difficult when you're champing at the bit to argue with him I realise) then you'll notice he mentions the older cities "such as NYC" having good down-town areas.

      Even to many Europeans, NYC looks like a good place to live - a sociable metropolis where you can live and work within a few miles of each other.

      It's the rest of your country that scares the crap out of us - driving 20-30 miles a day to get from the 'idyllic suburb' to the gigantic business park (like an industrial estate without any real machinery).

      So yes, comparing NYC and London will lead you to agree with the GP, as he intended. Compare London to L.A. and you wont get the same result.

      As a side note - try comparing some of them to Edinburgh or Glasgow (both >300 year old cities) and comparing the city-center living spaces. We get a lot of US tourists coming over the Fringe, and on more than one occasion I've been asked why we've never leveled out Arthur's Seat and 'filled in the middle of our city'. I'd like to think the answer is that we recognise the value of the green space - but the truth is more likely that it's a Royal Park, and they've not been allowed to sell it off to private interests.

      Btw - which part of the Hudson is blue? Cause if it's the part which is nowhere near the fucking giant city it runs next to - then so is the Thames further up river.

    25. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't with downtown cores. The problem is with how Americans tend to build them. The "concrete jungle" you speak of is a uniquely-American mistake...
      But if you do it sensibly, like is done in Europe, Asia and even American-like countries like Canada and Australia, you end up with excellent areas that are very livable. People end up living downtown, rather than just working there. Because of this, there are often extensive parks and green space. There is nightlife. There is a community spirit that you just don't find in the suburbs.

      Now, this sort of a downtown area does depend on some things that many Americans mistakenly consider "socialist" or even "communist", like good public transit. That's why America only has a few good downtown areas, and they are always in older cities like Chicago and New York City. Americans today have such a warped view that they probably couldn't implement a good downtown, even if they tried their hardest.

      I get it -- American bad, Europe and Asia good.

    26. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      While I agree public transport is great (I use it extensively when I am in Tokyo), some cities don't have their shit together. Like L.A. where I live.

      I'll see your anecdote with mine:

      Travel 30 miles to work by car - leave house at 6:15 - arrive at work at 6:45 a.m. Leave work at 4:40 - arrive home at 5:30 or so. So 30 minute morning commute, 40-50 afternoon. Add 10 minutes to both when I carpool with a coworker.

      By Train - Leave house at 6:10, drive 5 miles to train station, park and wait for train (15 minutes). 23 minute train ride (5 stops including both ends). Get off and board city shuttle. Wait 5 minutes while shuttle waits for an additional train to show up. 5 more minutes for shuttle to drop my in front of my place of work. Total morning commute - 48 minutes, 18 more than driving and requiring leaving earlier, but not too bad.

      Afternoon - shuttle to train station - 5 minutes. Then a 20 minute wait (shuttle is timed for an earlier train to another destination). Train ride 23 minutes. Then 15 minutes to GET MY CAR OUT of the parking lot onto the street, as the light is timed for 3 cars to release onto the very busy street during rush hour. Then an additional 30 minute drive from the train station to my house due to congestion and piss poor traffic signal programming. Note that it has taken me longer to drive the 5 miles from the train station to my house than the entire drive from work takes. Total time to get home, 93 minutes.

      Guess what I don't do.

    27. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      Erm...no it isn't. For a start, it's attached at the hip to Stanley Park, which is a park that is, in itself, nearly as large as the entire downtown core. How many other major cities can say that?

      Aside from that, at a quick glance on Google, downtown Vancouver contains at least 15 designated parks, one of which - Sunset Beach - covers one entire coast.

      In regards to the OP's other points, downtown Vancouver has excellent transit and is heavily populated. It's a pretty textbook example of what the OP was talking about, in fact.

    28. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by shilly · · Score: 1

      No, the GP specifically excluded older cities, which grew organically and had more old-world influence.

      As for San Diego...you'll lose your wager. Go to Google Maps and open a page looking at San Diego and another looking at London at a scale showing 2mi. You will see that
      1) there is far more green on the London map
      2) it is much more interdigitated -- you are always very close to green in London, which is decidedly *not* the case if you're in San Diego. The green spaces in San Diego are bigger, but there are far fewer of them.
      3) London is much more compact -- at 2m scale, you can comfortably see the whole of London from Barnet in the north to Croydon in the south, from Hounslow in the west to Bexley in the east. Wiki says it has a density of nearly 13,000 inhabitants per square mile, cf San Diego at 3,500 per square mile, and the San Diego metropolitan area at 712 per square mile. Houston is even more sprawling than San Diego and has even less green space, of course. (And a significant part of the green space is not accessible to the public, being private golf courses and country clubs).

      This is why the GP said what he said. I really think you should give up now!

    29. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ok, I did the exercise in question. And to the contrary, San Diego appeared to have more green space to me, not counting the considerable national forest I mentioned earlier.

      I'll alter my original claim. It looks to me like the problem here is merely stilted thinking. Namely, the idea that all cities have to have the same population densities, the same green space allocation, and the same kinds of green space.

      For example, the "sprawl" hides considerable green space. Each house lot, for example, has its own lawn and most neighborhoods have these lawns linked together. That means the need for formal green spaces like parks, preserves, etc is greatly reduced.

      When one looks at the few cities which actually have the characteristics of large European cities (New York, San Francisco, Washington DC, etc), we see similar solutions employed. So it looks more to me like the US due to its advantage of typically lower population density, has found other ways to solve the green space problem.

    30. Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Well, nobody forced you to live so far away from the train. You make you choices and have to live the trade offs. The longer commute is part of the equation when you choose to live in a certain neighbourhood which is far away from work.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  20. Apple's New HQ is a Fountainhead of Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know that Christopher Hawthorne's true identity is none other than that of Ellsworth Toohey, but this article makes it a plain fact.

    1. Re:Apple's New HQ is a Fountainhead of Innovation by Toonol · · Score: 1

      That's the funniest comment in the thread. Just the other day, I was listening to the radio and heard a fellow that sounded exactly like Wesley Mouch.

  21. Who is this goon? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    Apple wants to build the kind of building that Apple wants to build. And OF COURSE some architect who was NOT awarded the job is going to have some criticism, in order to massage his own ego.

    I used to live not far from there. Did it even occur to him that the employees DO NOT WANT to see much that is beyond the campus? That being there, and isolated, might actually afford a sense of relief?

    1. Re:Who is this goon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not an NHL enforcer.

  22. Yesss!!! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    Sharing a building with a bunch of law firms, banks and health insurance companies is just what Apple needs to obtain "notion of shared responsibility"!

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  23. 2 thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one - so they just want to just go in circles.
    two - they just want to go in circles.

  24. bitch bitch bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf are you bitching about?

  25. Some better Pictures by bobaferret · · Score: 3, Informative

    On the city's website is a better overview picture, as well as a map showing how it fits into the city.

      http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1107

    1. Re:Some better Pictures by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      On the city's website is a better overview picture, as well as a map showing how it fits into the city.

      Holy Crap! That's a cyclotron! Hasn't anybody else figured this out? If you guys think that the Reality Distortion Field is strong now, just wait until this puppy gets finished.

      This just can't end well.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Some better Pictures by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      You mean synchrotron, like SPring-8 here
      http://maps.google.com/maps?q=678-1205+japan&hl=en&ll=34.944277,134.42811&spn=0.046717,0.066519&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.957536,68.115234&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=14
      Cyclotrons are usually much, much smaller.

      and yes, I thought synchrotron since I first saw it, but that's because I work at one...

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  26. Apple trees by theurge14 · · Score: 1

    The building should be surrounded by apple trees.

    Clever, right?

    1. Re:Apple trees by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      They actually are including an orchard on the grounds...

  27. And what is any of this the concern of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At best the city council can have a say in whether a building can be erected based on safety concerns. In all other matters the council's, or anyone else's, opinion is completely irrelevant. If Apple wants to use its money to build and office space that looks like a large turd, assuming all safety and OSHA concerns are satisfied, thats Apple's business alone.

  28. Re:As usual, when it comes to something Apple does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah dont hate ibm^Wmicrosoft^Wgoogle^Wapple just cos they are successful. they deserve it!!!

  29. Having worked in both office parks and cities... by superdude72 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...I'll take a city any day.

    I worked on a corporate campus that was well integrated into the city of Berkeley, CA, for instance. Being able to easily go have lunch somewhere interesting, or stop by a bookstore, or visit the farmers' market--in other words, do the normal stuff that human beings like to do, as opposed to what food-court designers like to do--was a huge benefit of my job being located where it was.

    Working in an office park in South San Francisco, on the other hand, was like being perpetually stuck at the airport. My company provided a video game room to compensate. But it was like being an intelligent animal given a tire to play with at a poorly designed zoo. It is amazing to me that a place where tens of thousands of people work could be designed with so little thought to their needs other than cubicle space.

    This is why Silicon Valley companies such as Google provide all these seemingly cool benefits such as gourmet cafeterias. The office parks and campuses leave a lot to be desired in terms of quality of life when you're hiring people who may have just moved from a cool college town. As nice as the cafeteria at Google is, I doubt it's as cool as the gourmet gulch I left behind in Berkeley.

  30. How will employees commute? by tepples · · Score: 2

    Windows. Malls don't tend to have 'em in very great abundance.

    Nor do Macs, incidentally. For not much more than the price of a copy of Windows designed to run on a Mac (Windows 7 Home Premium retail), one could buy a nettop with its own copy of Windows (Windows 7 Home Premium OEM) and stick it on the KVM next to a Mac mini.

    It seems like that is the architect's main objection: the facility will not be nearly as shitty as facilities other workers have to deal with, and somehow that unfairness equates to bad design?

    How will employees commute between home and this new campus? Is it close enough to walk or bike? Is there adequate public transit? Or will most employees have to drive? The article quotes UC Berkeley architecture professor Louise A. Mozingo that a campus like this "precludes the concentration of population that makes public transportation feasible for governments and users."

    1. Re:How will employees commute? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Apple has a revenue of about 900k per employee*. If they're paying any kind of wage out of that, their employees are going to be fine.

      * I doubt this counts the Foxconn factory workers....

      The facility is being built for Apple employees, not generic tech workers. Apple knows what it's paying them and where they live. I'm sure it went into the decision process.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:How will employees commute? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Apple (in fact, Steve Jobs, in his pitch to the Cupertino city council meeting) mentioned very specifically an increase in the number of busses it already promotes for its current HQ. They want to subsidise many more public busses for commuting.

      I'm not sure how having 12,000 (with some obviously using cars) people in one place "precludes the concentration of population that makes public transportation feasible". A work place pretty much assures a steady stream of people who want to go to and from the same place on a daily basis.

      Perhaps that professor believes that public transport only works if all of the buildings are jammed up against each other for maximum efficiency of office space per unit worker.

      Maybe she thinks downtown busses are not capable of crossing over land that is flanked by green areas to get to Apple's building. Who knows.

    3. Re:How will employees commute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was at lunch on Friday, the group next to me included a spouse of an Apple employee. They were talking about commuting in the Bay Area, and the apple spouse mentioned that there was great support for public transit for getting to the current Apple campus, including Apple shuttles going to the Ace train and BART.

      I imagine that the new campus will have similar support for employees commuting via public transit.

  31. steve jobs actually did chime about motherboard by decora · · Score: 1

    layouts... its pretty well known he made some guys redesign a motherboard because it wasnt pretty enough.

  32. "Positive rights" or just entitlements? by tepples · · Score: 2

    our government is the people organized to do things to protect our rights.

    And a lot of university graduates confuse rights with entitlements, which they call positive rights. For example, the article mentions that cocoon campuses like this make public transit more difficult. Is public transit a "right" or a mere entitlement?

    1. Re:"Positive rights" or just entitlements? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Oh look, an anarchist using terms like "university graduate" and "entitlement" as if they were bad things. I don't waste words arguing with someone so dishonest as to participate in anti-intellectual well poisoning.

    2. Re:"Positive rights" or just entitlements? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Oh look, an anarchist

      I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist.

      using terms like "university graduate"

      Doc Ruby brought up "People in (American) universities".

      and "entitlement" as if they were bad things.

      I thought a culture of reliance on entitlements decreased the incentive to work and contribute back to the income and consumption taxes that fund the entitlements.

  33. In other words by Jonathan+A · · Score: 1

    The proposed building is essentially one very long hallway connecting endlessly with itself.

    So, in other words, an infinite loop.

  34. Self-searching for a goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if "metropolitan" is a goal. For many, the serenity of nature is a goal. Look no further than Central park in NYC where window offices facing the park are at the highest cost premium.

    Perhaps a massive collection of windowless cubicles with a fake tree in the corner of each one would suit critics better? Yes. I think it would.

    One wonders after AC2 (Spaceship) is built what of AC1 (Infinite Loop) and the now expected AC3?

  35. Does Hawthorne have a proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has Hawthorne ever worked in an office? Surely he must know that virtually every office space is a cocoon of some sort. These are buildings plunked down in the middle of a city, not a treehouse in the woods. If one is lucky, one has a bit of artificial greenspace and on rare occasions even almost natural greenspace. The absurd notion that a circlular design is somehow more "aloof from the world around it" is laughable unless, of course I am mistaken and the majority of the office buildings in Cupertino are situated on the first floor with glass walls and have parking only in the rear or underground.

  36. pretense != architecture by khallow · · Score: 0

    'If all you see in your workday are your co-workers and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property,' Mozingo writes, and you drive to and from work in the cocoon of your private car, 'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

    And where's the problem with that? I don't know about you, but I don't want to be bothered with bogus notions of "shared responsibility". And Apple has legitimate concerns about security when the building helps address.

    One might as well complain that the structure doesn't hold Christian or Islamic moral values. Or Vlad the Impaler's moral values for that matter.

    I'm sure Mozingo's head would look good on a pike, but maybe that moral value shouldn't appear in our architecture any more than Mozingo's moral values should.

  37. Re:Having worked in both office parks and cities.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the purpose of these closed in spaces with free lunch, dinner, hell 24 hour food. Once there, they do not really want you to leave. That is why they like to get "kids" off of campuses, they are not used to living life in the "real" world and are more maleable. Same thing with the big consulting firms, they fly you around every week and want you to work 60+ hours in 5 days. You get the 48 hours of downtime, but then back in the air.

    Maximizing ROI on the resource investment.

  38. seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can't expect them to literally construct a tall tower from ivory.

  39. Cocoon? by cuncator · · Score: 1

    Maybe the Monarch is taking over for Steve Jobs?

  40. pop psychology 101 by arikol · · Score: 2

    "the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

    Hmmmm.... that same notion didn't seem to arise on Wall street or in the banking sector even though they are generally situated in the heart of cities... maybe this pop-psychological link to the community doesn't override all the other factors, like being either a caring person or a sociopath? Jus' sayin'.

    1. Re:pop psychology 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an entire segment of architecture devoted to the monolithic, power projecting buildings investment bankers use. They're just as guilty, but in a different manner. It would require learning a bit about architecture and the psychology of place to understand it in detail, but basically they cut themselves off too, just differently.

  41. Re:Having worked in both office parks and cities.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I'll take a city any day.

    I worked on a corporate campus that was well integrated into the city of Berkeley, CA, for instance. Being able to easily go have lunch somewhere interesting, or stop by a bookstore, or visit the farmers' market--in other words, do the normal stuff that human beings like to do, as opposed to what food-court designers like to do--was a huge benefit of my job being located where it was.

    Working in an office park in South San Francisco, on the other hand, was like being perpetually stuck at the airport. My company provided a video game room to compensate. But it was like being an intelligent animal given a tire to play with at a poorly designed zoo. It is amazing to me that a place where tens of thousands of people work could be designed with so little thought to their needs other than cubicle space.

    This is why Silicon Valley companies such as Google provide all these seemingly cool benefits such as gourmet cafeterias. The office parks and campuses leave a lot to be desired in terms of quality of life when you're hiring people who may have just moved from a cool college town. As nice as the cafeteria at Google is, I doubt it's as cool as the gourmet gulch I left behind in Berkeley.

    Exactly... those "benefits" are simply due to the fact you've stuck a corporate park in the middle of nowhere.. I'll take a neighborhood of restaurants w/in walking distances (along w/ local gyms and healthcare) any day over eating the same cafeteria food daily.. Let alone interaction with colleagues and friends from other companies / universities and so forth that may also be near by..

  42. Re:Having worked in both office parks and cities.. by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

    That is why they like to get "kids" off of campuses, they are not used to living life in the "real" world and are more maleable.

    I'd have to say that it depends on the location of the campus. A campus in a city (or at least part in a city) may give the university kids some chance to see something "real". Of course, this could also just result in kids spending all their money in "trendy" (i.e. expensive) city shops.

  43. I thought the lawn was a public park by sandytaru · · Score: 1

    That was part of the agreement Apple had with Cupertino - the "carefully tended landscaping" part of the compound is open to the public. If that isn't true, TFA has a point, but if it IS true, then the Apple employees might well look out onto the lawn and see a group of schoolkids on a field trip, or a couple eating a picnic lunch. That's not quite as disconnected from the rest of the city as one would initially claim.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  44. Re:Having worked in both office parks and cities.. by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

    I'd have to agree. While the benefits are certainly nice (who doesn't like free food that's actually healthful?), a city offers the subtle and not-so-subtle enjoyments of everyday life.

  45. It's a Pyramid. by wonderboss · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs is building a monument to himself.

    --
    more cowbell
  46. Problem easily fixed by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

    and all you see out your window is the green perimeter

    Block up the windows.

    Office workers should consider themselves bloody lucky to either have a window to stare out of, or enough time away from doing their work to make one worthwhile. Isn't the desktop image on their monitors enough?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Problem easily fixed by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe they don't have a window to stare out of, but they most probably have Windows (TM) to stare at!

    2. Re:Problem easily fixed by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      I suspect Apple employees don't use Windows (TM).

  47. and... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...welcome to apple...

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  48. The time to get nervous by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    is when they offer housing.

  49. Re: Middle of nowhere? by weav · · Score: 1

    If Wolfe & Homestead is the middle of nowhere, then I am Marie of Romania. HP has been there since the '60s.. It'll be replacing one suburban office park with another, nicer-sounding one.
    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=s&ll=37.334678,-122.009611&spn=0.012096,0.014119&t=h&z=16&vpsrc=6

  50. Ugh. by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant.'

    Jesus. I can't describe in words how contemptuous I am of anybody who would utter those words with a straight face.

    The crazy thing is, I would expect anybody who thinks that way to be an Apple zealot in the first place.

    1. Re:Ugh. by Zero1za · · Score: 1

      I know right...

      Also, I sure Apple cares what some hippy from Berkeley thinks.

    2. Re:Ugh. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The crazy thing is, I would expect anybody who thinks that way to be an Apple zealot in the first place.

      - I don't understand, why? I don't own any Apple products and I don't subscribe to the collective mentality (to say the least), but why do you think that Apple lovers are also these highly social butterflies? I know some people who use those products but they are nothing like that.

      So why?

    3. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus. I can't describe in words how contemptuous I am of anybody who would utter those words with a straight face.

      Pure poetry.

      No mod points at the moment, otherwise you'd be setting at +4, not +3.

  51. Return of the Click Wheel by Iconoclasism · · Score: 1

    I really just think that they miss the days when the click wheel dominated, so they needed to make an office building in memory of it.

  52. Binary vs. fuzzy logic by tepples · · Score: 1

    it's just as sloppy to get knee deep in the mathematics ofinfinity and then claim that infinite is a binary state.

    It's not sloppy if you define "infinite" as "of cardinality at least aleph null". The reals are of greater cardinality than the integers, and their cardinality is equal to that of the power set of the integers. But it is true that the reals is infinite, and it is also true that the set of integers is infinite. Neither is more true than the other unless you employ some sort of fuzzy logic with an "infinitude" related to a beth number, or how many times you have to take the power set of the integers to reach that cardinality.

    1. Re:Binary vs. fuzzy logic by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Mod parent up. There are different classes of "infinity", and they are provably not equal.

  53. Neither isolated nor that impressive. by Animats · · Score: 2

    Cupertino is mostly suburban housing and strip malls. Apple's plan would be an improvement.

    As isolated corporate campuses go, it's not very isolated. Just in Silicon Valley, there are far more isolated HQs. There's Oracle HQ, which is surrounded by water on three sides and has a huge lawn on the fourth. Like Larry Ellison, it's an in-your-face statement of arrogance.

    Google HQ is somewhat isolated; they now have almost all of the Shoreline Industrial Park. Their architecture is standard industrial park, built for SGI before SGI tanked.

    For over-the-top corporate HQ design, there's Excite@Home. Yes, they're long gone. But before that dot-com went bust, they built an awesome headquarters complex on a finger of land a full mile out in the middle of San Francisco Bay. It has spectacular architecture, isolation, impressive open spaces, baseball fields, a health club with Olympic size pool, and a marina. Excite@Home went bust before moving in. The buildings were vacant for years, as a real estate company tried to rent them out. It was strange to walk through the huge complex of beautifully maintained empty office buildings. EA, Dreamworks, and some pharma companies now rent space there. It's still underutilized.

    IBM's Almaden Research Center is the purest expression of the isolated research center. It's on a mountaintop south of San Jose, surrounded by open land and parks. You enter through a modest gate, then drive half a mile through the hills, seeing nothing but open land and trees. Then you see IBM's glass and steel buildings. The view of the mountains from the cafeteria is spectacular. Much good work came out of there during IBM's glory years, including disk drive technology and several Nobel prizes. Today it's a shadow of what it once was.

    Compared to all of those, Apple's planned HQ is nothing.

    1. Re:Neither isolated nor that impressive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love to work there, so many people hate Apple now that they're successful, these are the people who hated Microsoft when they were relavent and the same people who are starting to hate Google and Facebook. How does one get the Job of architecture critic?

  54. I smell another patent... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

    Better watch out architects, Apple's going to patent "rounded buildings" next. haha

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
  55. Re: Middle of nowhere? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you actually looked at the map you've linked? It's a suburban wasteland, with streets after streets filled with nothing, where there is nothing to do, to see, to experience and even worth noting. It's a vast waste of space where those who live in it are forced to live in a bubble, void of any community experience and a sense of belonging. It's a place where people risk to be prisoners in their own homes and, to have the change to escape their prison, they must have a car and able to drive it for long periods of time, through a labyrinth of empty suburban roads where everything is dull and looks the same and then through a soulless interstate. That, Marie of Romania, is a place that is designed to suck the life out of you and leave you alone with your miserable life, and incidentally that's exactly one of the points that Christopher Hawthorne made regarding Apple's project.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  56. Corbu ruined architecture for years by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    ... mainly through influencing so many other architects to follow his theories. All those ugly, soulless, high-rise public housing buildings that everyone hates so much? Corbu largely came up with the idea. It was his idea of a worker's paradise. Corbu is the one who popularized the notion that architects were social visionaries who were above working for commission. You were privileged to pay THEM to implement their social visions. And for decades, people actually bought into that crap. This is why so much of 5th avenue in New York looks like, in the words of Tome Wolfe, "German worker housing pitched 30 stories high". The Rue de Regret, Wolfe also called it. To be beautiful as well as functional, like the Chrysler building, was a sin to architects for so long. It was bourgeois, and had to be chucked overboard in the name of sameness and the new social harmony. Unfortunately, there's still a strong strain of Corbu among some modern architects. "What, build what YOU want? But it's about MY vision!".

    The heirs of Corbu and Mies Van der Rohe howled like dogs when Robert Venturi built what is now called the Sony Building in New York. Once again, the NYC skyline had a building that was actually aesthetically pleasing. Imagine that; a company demanding that their architects building something beautiful in their eyes, regardless of what architecture critics thought. I mean, the nerve.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Corbu ruined architecture for years by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      BTW, it was Phillip Johnson that designed the AT&T building (now the Sony Building), not Robert Venturi, though Venturi was the man largely responsible for the rebellion against the uber-ugly functionalist theories of Corbu. Mies Van der Rohe said "less is more". Venturi said "Less is a bore".

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    2. Re:Corbu ruined architecture for years by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      And then there was Harry Seidler, who was reputedly such a control freak that when he designed the Australian Embassy in Paris he went to the level of even designing the ashtrays.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  57. Good point by tepples · · Score: 1

    Thank you for the good points about why reports of the PC's death have been exaggerated.

    1. Re:Good point by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the good points about why reports of the PC's death have been exaggerated.

      Yeah, thanks for the Mac saving the PC, and thus showing Apple wrong.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
  58. What do expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for a view?

    Herds of roaming wildebeest?

  59. Giant Reality Distortion Field Generator? by Misagon · · Score: 1

    Now that Steve Jobs is working less and less at Apple, they are going to lose the generator for the reality distortion field that sustains their business.
    Maybe the building is planned as a giant circle just so that it can house the new gigantic circular field generator that they need to build.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  60. The valley is a hell hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Collective metropolitan realm"? My ass. The Valley blows. It's nothing but ugly-office parks, horrendously overpriced (and shitty) housing and strip-malls. Utterly devoid of anything remotely resembling a culture worth interacting with.

    And remember the only reason to make the building "nice" is to keep the geeks THERE AND WORKING instead of going out and having a life.

  61. thats just in their ipod factories by decora · · Score: 1

    you get a super cheap dorm, so that FoxConn can be assured that you are not out dilly dallying instead of doing your 80 hours a week

  62. fascinating question.. re electronic trading by decora · · Score: 2

    in the 2000s hedge funds increasingly became run out of people's basements... take connecticut for example. hedge fund capital of the world... dudes sitting in their mcmansions trading bonds in their man-caves.

    now with electronic trading of stocks, and commodities futures... the 'open outcry' pits where traders go to work and yell at each other, have almost disappeared... all that has happened mostly in the last 10 years.

  63. -1 hypocritical by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    die you sack of worthless shit. how dare you tell anyone else what to do.

    But it's OK for you to tell him what to do.

  64. ballmer? you ok buddy? by decora · · Score: 1

    why dont you have a seat right there. now

    why dont you tell us why you came here today?

  65. Re: Middle of nowhere? by klui · · Score: 1

    Oh, so you just looked at a map. Have you ever been there in person?

    Where do you propose Apple build? They want to stay in Cupertino which is commendable for them as they could easily move to some state in no man's land. HP is getting rid of the site so it's a win-win for Apple, HP, and the city of Cupertino.

  66. That's no office park. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a space station!

  67. BULLSHIT -- Apple Stores are public by gig · · Score: 2

    Fucking Apple Stores are not cut off from the world! Fully 1/3rd of all Apple employees work at an Apple Store with the actual consumers of the products. Every Apple Store is like a public entrance to the mothership. The Apple Store is like "onstage," and the mothership is like "backstage."

    Yes, creative people need to seclude themselves away while they work their shit out. They need a refuge that is outside of time and space, and they need it to be distraction-free, which it very often is not in an office, with fucking business criminals running around having meetings and and figuring out new ways to fuck the customer over.

    And if you work in front of a Mac, iPad, and iPhone all day, with your browser, email, Twitter, IM, 3 fucking FaceTime cameras, and so on, you are anything but cut off from the world.

    And when someone is working at Apple, that *is* a kind of community service. I don't care that the company somehow figured out how to take a 40% profit margin on an iPad, I care that they are selling the best $499 computer ever, and in many cases to people who have never used computers before. In other cases, to people who have had many computers, but never one that didn't crash, didn't get viruses, didn't demand they learn I-T, and can show accurate color and render HTML5 correctly. In other cases, they brought computing to a location or task it wasn't in before. For example, they made a phone that runs a Mac-class native C multitrack recorder called FourTrack that I have used to write hundreds of songs over the past 3 years, wherever I was, whatever I was doing when inspiration struck. Thousands of other songwriters also, FourTrack is very popular. You have almost certainly heard songs that were written using it without knowing it, which might not have even been written otherwise. There is one song that the writer said he wrote while halfway up a rock face, and he stopped and recorded the song in his head in FourTrack on iPhone. He could have forgotten it otherwise.

    With all the corporate malfeasance going on, a bought US government deliberately bankrupting the country to reduce corporate taxes by even more, the only reason you would be knocking Apple is you are starfucking. Everybody has a fucking opinion on Apple these days, most of them totally fucking misinformed. So tiresome.

    1. Re:BULLSHIT -- Apple Stores are public by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      What computer does apple sell that is less then $1000 ?? Last I checked the cheapest full computer apple sold was the iMac which is like $1200? If we're calling iPad and iPhone and iPod Touch computers now then we must also call programmable calculators computers and we've never done that even though they've been around for 10 years. Remember we had a planet called Pluto? It's the exact same situation.

      Also my Macbook crashes all the time. I hate that spinning pinwheel. Also my battery is trashed in a three year old laptop, presumably because certain software causes the CPU to spin and it gets hot to the touch when I close the screen instead of going to sleep like it goes 90% of the time. Macs work for most people because they use them to read mail and surf and maybe use a couple apps that have been blessed by Apple. I can tell you if I used my Windows machine and only used Microsoft software it would never crash either and it would play much nicer with the Linux systems in my house then my mac does with anything else that is not apple.

      I am not really a hater, but out of 10 linux systems, 5 windows7 systems, 3 windows xp, and a macbook that I have because I won, the Mac easily gives me the most trouble out of the lot. I also wonder how anyone can say they 'just work' when Apple themselves release fixes all the time.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:BULLSHIT -- Apple Stores are public by blackcreekquinby · · Score: 1

      You nailed it, but I'm hoping gig was just bs-ing; otherwise, his head has been up Job's ass so long he hasn't seen daylight for years.

  68. WHOOOOOSH! by blair1q · · Score: 1

    If you have billions of dollars to spend on a building that makes the news three times a week four years before it opens, then you're already in a coccoon separated from the realities of human existence, and you might as well have a pretty place to work while you're there.

    If you want Apple and its employees to feel like people, tax them until they all have $0 in the bank and $20k/year take-home pay, and make them work in whatever lean-to hasn't been condemned by the Earthquake inspectors.

  69. another similar building... by edko · · Score: 1

    Well, the Pentagon has several rings in a self connected topological arrangement.

    Once again, Apple seems to be sticking with the concept of only one 'feature' (hallway). :-)

  70. Haters gonna hate. by LXPK · · Score: 1

    Why do people criticize things? Because they exist.

  71. Re:Having worked in both office parks and cities.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know. I'd rather be unemployed than work in Berkeley. Except that being unemployed I would probably end up in Berkeley with its multitudes of homeless people. Dirty, crowded, smelly, full of egotistic hipsters and hippies alike. I will never understand the insanity of urban people.

  72. Who was that /. architecture critic? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Anybody else remember that puffed up critic with the florid language? He spent a while here. Not Jon Katz, I don't think. Been too long.

  73. What a load of Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

    Pulllllease!

    It would take very much more indeed, than a new building, and driving to work in a car, to achieve the isolation he's talking about.
    People get more work done when they are cloistered away. They are more focused, and communicate more effectively with each other.

    But they still have the magical electrical telephone, and the inter-web-tubes, to talk to outsiders , they have media at home and in the car, and they have friends, contacts, interests outside the company. Ie, they also have a life.

  74. Apple makes me uncomfortable by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or does anyone else feel really uncomfortable in an Apple store. It's like they are trying to make their peice of the world unreal somehow. And I happen to like the convention of going to a cash register to pay. Having everyone walk around with transaction machines just seems like a goofy attempt to buck the norm and say, 'Hey look at us! We're different!'. Doesn't seem smart at all. I can't imagine working in that kind of environment all day. People should embrace the real world, not ignore that it exists.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Apple makes me uncomfortable by tyrione · · Score: 2

      It's you. I'd suggest not being on amphetamines, or any other psychoactive agent when you walk into public spaces with lots of people in a good mood. You'll end up thinking everyone is looking at you.

    2. Re:Apple makes me uncomfortable by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      In my experience, it is the people who are on drugs that need the quiet, serine and controlled environment that is Apple.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  75. If you don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It's quite simple really, anyone criticizing apple is obviously not a fag, and therefore not a concern to apple.

  76. build a mixed use village by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    it would be no problem at all to build a mixed use real community there and have just as much greenery, but Apple employees might have to actually mix with other peeps, go forbid. I may be rabid Apple fanboy but I don't think the "infinite hoop" is the best thing to build there. Build taller buildings, a mix of residential and office and greenspace. Look up "Vancouverism". It would be easy to have enough work space and enough living space for 12,000 people there. Doesn't need to be the same 12,000 people.

  77. Re:Having worked in both office parks and cities.. by identity0 · · Score: 1

    Having never been to Silicon Valley, I've always wondered what life was like there. I've lived in cities where driving was basically necessary (Memphis, TN) and I thought that it was pretty stifling in terms of community and creativity.

    But Silicon Valley is supposed to be a major center of the tech industry, so I thought that it was a much less car-centric town.

  78. They get windows? by jmuzz · · Score: 2

    "and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property"

    Most of us only have a fabric covered cube wall to look at all day, you insensitive clod!

  79. Re: Middle of nowhere? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

    Oh, so you just looked at a map. Have you ever been there in person?

    Are you aware that you provided a link to Google maps, where you can access an interesting feature which they named "street view"? Nevertheless, here is a challenge for you: describe in your own words every remotely interesting points in all that vast area. All you can come up with. Anything at all. If you are hard pressed to come up with more than half a dozen interesting points per km without using vague terms then you prove my point.

    Where do you propose Apple build? They want to stay in Cupertino which is commendable for them as they could easily move to some state in no man's land. HP is getting rid of the site so it's a win-win for Apple, HP, and the city of Cupertino.

    You don't get it, do you? The fundamental point isn't where they will build it, it's how they've designed it. Their design is fundamentally flawed because it represents a wasteful sprawl of nothing that isolates their workersfrom the outside world and the outside world from their workers, but which happens to be shiny at it. A shiny segregated sprawl such as the one which has been proposed has the nasty effect of being a soulless prision which happens to be nice to look at. It's isolated from the world, segregates itself and their workers from the community, it represents an immense psychological barrier to those who work in it and live around it... It may even risk being a sociopath factory, designed to shield their workers from the outside world and to stop them from acknowledging that there is life outside their work. This is a major problem which is caused by Apple's design and how it interacts with it's surroundings.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  80. Circular or Cubic by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    it will still be a Chrystal Cathedral.

  81. I'm thinking of downtown Wiesbaden by Quila · · Score: 1

    Lots of stone, concrete and asphalt. It's older so it looks cooler than most American cities, but it's the same as far as that goes.

    Or try Ludwigshaven. Yuck.

  82. Re:Having worked in both office parks and cities.. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    I'm not an expert by any means, having only been there a couple of times (although most recently last week so it's still fresh in my mind). I'm certain there are parts I missed that are wholly different from my perception and that a local will think, "this guy is an idiot! Hasn't he even heard of [....]?" That said:

    Silicon Valley is among the least walkable places I've ever been. The whole time I was there, I saw literally not a single person on foot. If you wanted, you could probably hoof it from your homogenous residential section to the nearby strip mall, but I didn't see anyone doing it.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  83. Geek Creds Anyone? by kwolf22 · · Score: 2

    'If all you see in your workday are your co-workers and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property,' Mozingo writes, and you drive to and from work in the cocoon of your private car, 'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."

    So where did this guy get his geek credentials from anyway? I don't even have window... I get enough UV radiation from my wall o'monitors down here in the basement, thanks. The only scenery I look at is rendered through a pixel shader... And my commute is never lonely - since my mom does all the driving.

    This guy really needs to get in touch with reality...

  84. Re: Middle of nowhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? I live within 20 miles of the proposed site and have even been in at least one of the HP buildings they plan to demonlish. Maybe 2 or 3 of them actually. Though, usually, I've been in the area just to get frozen yogurt or chinese food.

    Look, the area as it is, is a bunch of restaurants along stevens creek, a mall that's almost-stopped-dying along miller, and practically nothing to write home about for several blocks until you hit Lawrence expressway, where then it's more stores along a road.

    Given that this spaceship isn't going to be an arcology and people only work there, it seems fine to me. If I had the chance to work there, I'd think it'd be pretty cool. A nice view of some trees and a park out the window, an isolated place to think and do my work. When I leave, given the secrecy, my work stays in the spaceship. Clear and easy work life balance.

    Sure, it's isolated. Dude, the whole company as it is is isolated, isn't it? How does that make anything worse? It'd probably even cut down on paranoia since I'd think that anybody working in the dozens of not-Infinite-Loop buildings would be afraid for their jobs if stuff got leaked to their neighbors who they probably don't even talk to anyways.