Unanimous Approval for Apple’s Cupertino Campus

Courtesy of MacRumors.com

UPDATE: Although having already cleared a preliminary vote, the Apple HQ was given unanimous approval from the Cupertino council yesterday. One “largely perfunctory” vote remains for November 15th. Detailed images, after the break.

Richard Nieva (CNET) reports that plans for Apple’s new corporate headquarters have been approved by Cupertino’s planning commission (the final, deciding vote will be in May November 2014). The “spaceship”, designed by Foster + Partners in collaboration with Kier & Wright, will cover 2.8 million square feet, host up to 14,000 employees, include ”a 600-seat restaurant with four-story glass sliding doors”, be surrounded by over 6000 trees, and – to top it off – come with a price tag close to $5 billion.

Courtesy of MacRumors.com

Nieva also reveals some tidbits from the recent meeting, including words from Lord Foster: ”the site’s now infamous O-shaped structure was not the original vision.” You can read the full article here.

Courtesy of MacRumors.com

More images available at MercuryNews.com

Cite: Taylor-Foster, James. "Unanimous Approval for Apple’s Cupertino Campus" 16 Oct 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 22 Oct 2014. <http://www.archdaily.com/?p=434703>
  • Miguel Ricardo

    I don’t think they had a choice! Here’s Jobs at the Cupertino mtg laying down the law:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M

  • Daniel

    I’m so glad that after Jobs’ death his final dream of the legacy he would leave could be completely destroyed leaving this disgusting value engineering crater of garbage in its place.

    • axio

      Value engineered….and still with a $5 billion price tag.

    • HK

      Steve Jobs was very involved in the design process of this new campus…it’s part of his legacy by choice.

    • Mohammad Azzam

      Steve Jobs’ last appearance was presenting this piece of art
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M

  • Raymond Smith

    As a design, architectural and heritage practitioner, I am disappointed by this very obvious “pentagon 2″ structure. It does not make sense of Apple’s past in the present. There is no recall of Apple’s unique, playful, humble, human and brave beginnings legible in the reading of this structure. There is no sense of Genius Loci. Apple will damage their user friendly image and brand by constructing this romanesque military barrack. There can be no future in forgetting the past. “The future comes from behind” [Be truthful to it] Derrida. Sincerely, Raymond Smith.

  • David

    Same idea with apropiated scale and materiality… http://www.jmsg.es/142_GABRIEL%20Y%20GALAN/gabrielgalan01.htm

  • Stephen Hargreaves

    My difficulty with this design is the lack of visible expansion flexibility. As a design architect myself, I would like to know more about this aspect of the proposals.

    • Ilya Bourim

      to the comment on the flexibility and expansion, i think should be limited by something. Floor-plates seem deep enough to allow basic flexibility. Companies that grow too big, tend to quickly forget their values. Apple is already big enough. Stop growing. From the street level, i think it fits very well with the contextual low rise, from democratic point of view it has no obvious hierarchy, everything is connected, the center is a lake. nature… it is also very symbolic, zero – the beginning of everything… i think no matter what the design would be, there would be haters and there would be lovers. I think its fine.

  • Russ Parker

    Hard to disagree with comments…as designer and developer of office campus projects, this project seems to miss all the authenticity and soul cues for the company and community…duh

  • Anthony Gugliotta

    The Apple Campus has met the same fate as all of the post-Jobs Apple products.

  • Vendetta

    Well, I don’t think the idea is original – the Slovak architect group VAL (Viera Mecková, Alex Mlynárčik and Ĺudovít Kupkovič), which became famous thanks to French theorist of architecture Michel Ragon, designed something similar (but much better) in late 60′s! http://www.olmuart.cz/MMU/COLLECTIONS/our-treasures/COLLECTIONS-VAL/ The model was exposed in Paris (1977) and in London recently.

  • Vendetta
  • Ibrahim

    I can understand that architectural tastes differ but many of the criticisms read here verge on the restriction of the rights of others to their individual tastes.
    One of Apple’s hallmarks is its penchant for innovation, simplicity and the UNEXPECTED which notwithstanding conventional wisdom begins to trend after a while. This quaint disposition in my view is accentuated with the circular ring design. For those commentators traditionally schooled in architecture, I regret that some of your spontaneous creativity may have already been compromised. Watch out for similar circular buildings of varying sizes in future. Remember that many great architectural buildings met with such criticisms at first.

  • KDS

    Yikes! Raymond’s comparison to a military barracks is spot on. It resembles a circular version of Prora–Hitler’s mile-long beach resort built to house 20,000 vacationing Nazis. http://bit.ly/15w7nD2

  • Shahab

    Rounded corners kids, rounded corners. This takes that concept to a whole new level.

  • Martin Lucas

    It looks like the first project I did in 1997… when I was in Highschool. It was a simple circular building with agricultural land and orchards in the middle. There was also a circular atrium inside. Because it was partially on posts, you could just go under the ring, directly in the garden.
    The whole building would have been in white-yellow concrete, and would have been left to street artist’s imagination.
    This was a Highschool projet, but could have easily been transformed in an office building.
    The lesson of it is, no matter what the shape is. If you let people use and transform the building as they want, you will have something human. If you want only a regular, shiny surface, then you won’t.

  • Burkinghand

    beautiful