Critic Pans Apple's New Campus As a Retrograde Cocoon 332
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."
Some better Pictures (Score:4, 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 [cupertino.org]
Re:Downtown cores are perfectly fine. (Score:4, 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 [wikipedia.org]
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.