BuildingSocietyVillage Development

Letter to Mr. Steve Jobs, Apple Inc.

Originally published on Biourbanism.org


Apple’s planned new donut-shaped campus….

Dear Mr Jobs,

Due to the wonders of the iPad, I came across your June 7th presentation to the Cupertino council of the plans for the new Apple campus. My excitement at the start of your presentation — expecting Apple’s cutting edge tradition to appear in the Architecture and Planning — soon turned to a profound disappointment. You were absolutely right to state that the intended capacity of 12,000 people in a single building is “rather odd”. It is certainly not unique. Each of the destroyed WTC “twin towers” had a larger capacity. However, the idea of a single circular building in the park and, indeed, a “campus” is odd in more than one aspect.

It is odd because, since Jane Jacobs’ “The Death and Life of the Great American Cities” (published in 1961) every one knows that dividing the city to single function zones, a practice known as “Zoning”, is bad urban practice. Industrial “parks”, which is essentially what you are planning at Cupertino, are inhabited on working hours and abandoned at night inviting all kinds of security hazards. They are tremendous generators of traffic congestion at peak hours, morning and afternoon, requiring super wide roads that stay empty during most of both, day and night.

It is odd because, while humanity must find ways to reduce CO2 emissions by private cars and invest in efficient means of human mobility, Apple is planning huge parking facilities that will encourage its employees to drive to work. You may think of an alternative to the costly construction of under or over ground parking in the shape of encouraging your staff to live next door and walk to work or; for those who live a little further, you could buy them a Segway. And for those who are even further away you could pay their bus ticket. The overall cost for society will be far lower and even more so for Apple.

It is odd because even in the USA people are beginning to realize the ills of suburbia and urban sprawl, both concepts belonging to the middle of the last Century. A project the size of yours could mark the beginning of a new era in American urbanism, an era that puts human beings before the car, pedestrians before drivers. It could invest in creating a lively public realm, in the shape of streets rather than roads, where the people of Cupertino, including Apple employees, could meet, connect, do business and interact for their mutual benefit. Instead, your project replaces parking lot placelessness with “green” placelessness.

If, as you said, your existing campus is boring, you obviously don’t have the means to imagine how boring your circular “spaceship” building will be. It will simply look the same from every angle. Even the curved glass will look the same all around. If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.

The circular plan is not new. It was tried before and revealed that it creates real problems of orientation. No matter where you are, it all looks the same. When next in Washington DC don’t miss a visit to the Hirshhorn museum (1974) and its fine collection of modern Art. If they haven’t altered it since my last visit, you will at some point ask yourself: have I been here before? Have I reached the end of the exhibit? Did I already see this painting? You may also want to travel to Paris, France, where you can visit the once admired but always-disorienting circular terminal 1 at Charles De Gaulle airport (also 1974 vintage!).

Moreover, also the idea of the building in the park is not new. It’s the disastrous idea of Le Corbusier that swept the world in the 30s and seems to have a hold on you still. You can visit the urban wasteland of Brasilia, planned in the mid 50s in Le Corbusier’s spirit, to realize the magnitude of the disaster.

In your presentation you used the all too often misused term of “human scale”, saying that the projected buildings on site will not exceed four stories in height, as if the height of a building is the single factor defining “human scale”. I have never been to Cupertino, but I bet you there is not a single street, there, that feels as good (for humans, not cars) as most streets in Manhattan — which is, despite its tall buildings, far more “human scaled” than Cupertino.

You avoided naming your excellent architects. At some point, Sir Norman Foster was mentioned, but you might have selected any other “starchitect.” This is not surprising. Foster’s is a big name, fit for the big job of a conservative client. He is also a great technician who can easily cope with a few kilometers of bent glass and exciting structure. These qualifications are all very important, but to conceive “the best office building in the world,” you need more. True, today’s world looks for excitement and extravaganza, but misses on quality. Not just quality of construction and detail (which is very important, of course) but quality of living. One could have hoped that a visionary like you would understand that there is more to a building than just serving its occupants’ functional needs. A good building serves its surrounding community first. A suburban community, housed by private homes within private gardens, does not need another super-sized park. Its members need to be able to mingle on the street, sit in a sidewalk cafe, buy something at a corner shop, and do all that while walking outdoors along a street — not among the wastelands of Stevens Creek Blvd. Apple’s staff needs more. Your employees should be able to select where and what to eat during their lunch break, and also, yes, whom they meet. The best 3,000 sq. m. in-house café, in which workers are forced to eat every single day, just won’t do.

I’ve seen great buildings, mediocre ones and even bad ones visited by students of architecture. Only a very exceptional few are visited more then 10 years after they were built. Your “odd” spaceship will not last that long.

Having, so far, been critical of the proposed Apple campus, let me end on a positive and hopeful note. “Apple City” is what you want for Apple and Cupertino. Your current site is a perfect start.

You might begin by looking at the surrounding roads with the intention to turn them into lively streets. These public spaces would be your anchors to Cupertino. Your exciting, state-of-the-art buildings, most probably built along these streets, could allow for commercial uses at ground level with mixed uses of offices and housing in the floors above. In order to encourage people to walk, you should examine the dimension of the street grid in the adjacent area and align new streets with those, so that people from the surrounding residential areas would be encouraged to walk across your site to other locations in the vicinity. You might allocate some plots for public buildings like an “Apple School,” Apple “iSport,” or an Apple “iShow” theatre to be used for Apple’s events, presentations, and (also) for public performances. You will still have ample area for a public park for the recreation of both Apple staff and Cupertino’s citizens.

Apple, Google, and Facebook capitalize on the basic human need for contact. Urban habitation – the City — predates them by a few millennia. Like them, a city’s raison d’être is to provide each individual with a huge network of potential contacts. However advanced and powerful, Apple, Google, Facebook (and others yet to come) will never replace the City; they will always complement it.

You have a unique opportunity to lead urban planning and development in America and all over the world towards new horizons. A pioneering project such as this will draw visitors from all over the globe. Grab it!

Sincerely,

Hillel Schocken

~~~~

Hillel Schocken has been Principal at Schocken Architects since its establishment in 1978 leading projects in a large variety of building types and programs including Urban Planning, Museums, Educational facilities, Offices, Housing, Industry and Conservation. Under his Direction, Schocken Architects won high esteem among professional peers for the high quality of work produced. Schocken is held in high regard with officials in local authorities throughout the country and was invited to serve as member of numerous Juries for prizes and competitions. In parallel to his professional activity, Schocken has been teaching in Architecture schools throughout the country as well as abroad. Until recently, he served as director of the Azrieli School of Architecture at the Tel Aviv University. In 2000 Schocken was nominated Curator of the Israeli pavilion exhibition at the Venice Biennale of Architecture where he exhibited his original Urban Theory – “Intimate Anonymity”. Schocken is among the founders of MIU – Movement for Israeli Urbanism as well as acting Chairman of the Board of directors of the “Israel Stage Orchestra” and publishes periodically articles in the national press covering both general and professional subjects.

8 Comments

  1. “Modernism has replaced the means that human beings use to connect to each other, and to external structures. The city as a framework for establishing connections among members of an urban population has been changed to a spatial structure whose aim is to disconnect. This applies both to path connectivity — people easily walking to meet one-another face-to-face — and also to visual connectivity between an individual and the built components of the city. My investigations reveal that a city is a system of systems — with a logical architecture (in the sense of computer architecture) that is far closer to the human brain than to existing electronic computers. Cutting connections, as the modernists have done, is akin to cutting the wiring in a computer or the neurons in the brain. After decades of psychological conditioning to a sterile world, people have accepted disconnectedness as a way of life. Are human beings changed so they no longer value spatial structures that satisfy basic sensory and social needs?” – Nikos A. Salingaros

    See: https://www.planetizen.com/node/32

  2. I have been a long advocate of Apple and their innovations but after watching the video of Jobs in the council room proposing his plans I can’t help but get a little sick at how much every member of the council fawns over him. Apple mothership = greenwashing at best

  3. I worked for a few days refurbishing in the rotating circular restaurant in Sydney’s Center Point tower. I was literally and metaphorically walking around in circles!
    Gordon Williams.

  4. I have a Mac and I prefer it to a PC, but I really dislike Steve Jobs’ way of doing business – he presumes that we all have plenty of money to spend on everything he produces and to pay to get help from customer service – now $49.00 when it should be free after paying for a 3 year service contract. By this time and date, all that they produce should be better priced. The fact that this company cannot build green.. it’s just incomprehensible in this day and age – and he has cancer – you would think he would want to leave a better legacy than just making more and more money!!!!! I cannot understand the greed and the short-sightedness..Damnit!!! What a jerk!! Yeah, I said it.. sorry, for my anger! Selfish and self-absorbed guy that’s who and what he is and they are, as a result of his NON-leadership! Cannot stand the guy!!!

  5. Not surprised in the least by this. It’s not in America’s plans to do anything, but business as usual until the bitter end it seems

  6. I’m a big Apple supporter, and have always used Macs in my architectural practice. This is the first I’ve read of the plans for the new Apple campus, and I too am saddened for the missed opportunity. I don’t know how far along the plans are underway, but if they are still just digital representations, it’s not too late to take another look and invite leaders in progressive planning and design to propose an alternative to the iHoop. I hope Stewart Brand could be included on the list. The ideas in his book, “How Buildings Learn” should be seriously considered for this large project. Apple products are innovative and constantly being redeveloped and revised. Their physical campus should reflect this so that architecture and product can constantly adapt and reinforce each other. Another member of the design dream team should be William McDonough (“Cradle to Cradle”).

  7. I guess it comes down to personal taste.

    Design from nature anyone?

    Lots of potential … food forest in the interior section. But I guess you’ll only see that if you want to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Back to top button
Close