Slashdot Mirror
Apple's MacBook Air-like Store Roof Wasn't Designed To Handle Snow... in Chicago (9to5mac.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report Apple opened its new flagship retail store in Chicago earlier this year to much acclaim, but as the weather turns from fall to winter, a design oversight is causing some problems. As reported by Chicago blog Spundart, Apple seemingly didn't design the MacBook Air-like roof of the store to account for snow... in Chicago. Apple's newest Chicago store garnered earlier attention for its roof design that mimics a MacBook Air, but one clear oversight is that there are no gutters to catch snow or ice. Furthermore, as the multi-level store sits along the Chicago River, the roof is sloped downward, meaning that anyone standing on the walkway along the river gets hit with falling snow and ice. Further reading: Apple is really bad at design.
Obviously you're holding the building wrong.
If they really completely forgot about snow and ice they have a much more serious problem.
What about the WEIGHT of the snow and ice on the cantilevered roof with just the glass to support it?
I looked at the picture and couldn't tell how far it was extended out from the central supports but if there's a lot of snow on top that then catches rain and sleet to become a heavy thick blanket of ice, I would imagine there could be some structural issues (if it even flexes a little maybe it would cause the glass to shatter).
Any structural engineers who know this kind of construction and can shed some light on this issue?
...that intentionally slows down the snow and ice after one year.
The snow falls of the roof just fine, it's not accumulating to the point of a collapse. So the problem isn't the roof.
The problem is people are pedestrianing all wrong.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Build early, build often?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Holy shit, your complete insensitivity to anyone else and your willingness to make excuses for Apple is simply staggering.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
...and one thing that sticks out in memory is in some of their stores, they had opted to build things against code and safety guidelines and just pay the fines as long as it wouldn't shut down the stores.
The company got in trouble regularly because of things like people hurting themselves by walking into glass doors that are hard to see without appropriate markers and whatnot.
They didn't give a fuck.
The building design was pretty clearly intended to resemble a MacBook lid, and there's around a 0% chance that it was a coincidence.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It's holding onto the roof wrong.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The roof works fine, it's the damn snow that's the problem.
Maybe write into the specs that the roof cannot be used to keep snow away. While you're at it, just to be safe, write it for water in general. Or hail. Or anything else that might fall from the sky.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I work in Downtown Chicago.
First, we haven't really had snow yet. And by that, I mean we haven't had a good snowfall over 15" in one go, or our 36" annual snowfall, or our 89.7" record snowfall. I thought this would be a story about the roof handling the weight of snow. I'm guessing professionals that know Chicago had that in mind.
Second, snow accumulates on exterior building walls, melts, freezes to ice, and falls off. Pretty much all of Downtown Chicago in winter is orange cones and signs saying "Danger–Falling Ice".
So this is nothing unusual. Well, except it's Apple. That's the only thing that makes the story interesting at all.
There's also 0% chance that Apple just casually designed the building and it was not signed off on by architects, engineers, the city / state building inspectors and planning commissions, and thus met all requirements for handling snow and ice. My guess is the pitch of the roof was such that it did not require snow guards, but in reality it needs them.
Better known as 318230.
You do not understand the permitting process.
The stamps of the licensed architects & engineers are a surrogate for actually understanding and vetting the design. The plan reviewers and inspectors only look for specific code issues. Actually, it would be an impossible burden for them to thoroughly review all aspects of every building design, unless you had more inspectors and plan reviewers that you have architects & engineers submitting plans, and required mountains of additional paperwork from the architects & engineers.