Cleaning out my inbox at work and came across this link from a colleague and a half-baked response I never sent (below):
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/why-apples-new-campus-anti-urban/1473/
I guess the real story is – should Apple have built a new tower
downtown?
I’m intrigued by the criticism but I wouldn’t necessarily blame Apple
for the urban design... someone clearly has the ear of the ecological urbanists
at Harvard that seem to have developed a whole new excitement for
buildings-in-fields over the last couple of years.
I’ve seen a couple presentations of similar concepts IN cities with
people promoting the idea that paving over with grass is going to be markedly
better than paving over with asphalt. I'm sure it is from an ecological site-oriented perspective, but you don't have to look far for the externalites that will negate much of the benefit.
I'd say it’s pretty tough to argue that this is an ideal response, but in the
context of a highway-oriented office bunker, it's better than many.
I’m a bit skeptical about the critique of walkability in the article
too... HP’s original campus plan certainly wasn’t any better with all the parking lots. It is more walkable now, there just doesn't seem to any place to go. Perhaps the score on this point is a wash.
