Although all of us at IntoMobile are pretty much wowed with Apple’s future campus, some people don’t like it that much. Quite the contrary, Los Angeles Times’ architecture critic, Christopher Hawthorne, thinks it’s “doggedly old-fashioned,” reflecting the “suburban corporate architecture of the 60’s and 70’s.” I’m no architecture expert, but that doesn’t sound right to me.
Anyway, Hawthorne also had two cents to add about Jobs’ decision of not naming architects, adding that he “likes to promote the notion that he is personally involved in designing virtually all of Apple’s buildings.”
And while I can see the argument I don’t get what’s the big deal. If architects — which are undoubtedly well paid for their work — have nothing against that, why would LA Times’ critic step up in their defense? Not sure I understand his point.
To be fair, I somewhat agree with Hawthorne “anti-green” point. He writes that the new campus’ dependence on the car makes for a not-that-green argument. However, I must also add that I don’t see the alternative; should Apple’s make its own rail company? Or just don’t tout it as a green building? What do you think?
[Via: TUAW]