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.
...that intentionally slows down the snow and ice after one year.
Build early, build often?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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*
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.