I enjoyed Kurt's conversation with Phil Patton about the proposed new Apple HQ, but would like to point out that one of the examples Phil gave for the fate of iconic corporate headquarters was not well chosen.

The Chrysler Building was not originally designed by William Van Allen for Chrysler but for another developer, from whom Mr. Chrysler bought it, nor was the building ever owned by the car company; it was the personal property of Walter Chrysler. Indeed, it's more accurate to think of it as being named for the man than the company.

Here are two relevant quotes on these points from a New Yorker article published in the November 18, 2002 issue:

"The Chrysler Building would not look as it does if Dreamland had not burned down in 1911. Coney Island's white-towered Freudian fairway had been the brainchild of a real estate entrepreneur named William H. Reynolds, whose reputation for public mayhem was such that when a short circuit in the "Hell Gate" exhibit set the entire blocks long place ablaze, some newspapers as sumed that it was just another stunt. Financially drained and cured of his taste for artificial fantasy, Reynolds turned his attention to the real-life fantasy of Manhattan, where he proposed to erect the tallest building in the world. Although the Woolworth Building beat him to the punch, in 1913, and the war slowed him down, by the time the late-twenties boom began he had got hold of a choice piece of land at the new city hub around Grand Central Terminal, and had hired William Van Alen to execute the design."

The land was actually owned by Cooper Union, from which Reynolds leased it. Chrysler subsequently bought the lease and the rights to the design from Reynolds.

"The money came from a personal account. Although Chrysler had been searching for a site for his business headquarters since he'd set up his corporation, just three years earlier - during which time it had gone from thirty-second place among car manufacturers to third-this was not a corporate acquisition. Chrysler wanted the building as a project for his sons . . . "

Chrysler did have Van Allen make a number of changes, including the addition of the various automotive icons, and the overall design continued to evolve through the construction and the famous competition with H. Craig Severance's Bank of Manhattan Building, but the essential form was there from the start, before Chrysler was involved. Robert A.M. Stern's NEW YORK 1930 has an instructive and fascinating four-panel illustration showing how the design changed on p. 604.

Does this portend a change in Apple's culture?
It looks like a circularized Pentagon!

It is positive to see a technological innovator making an effort to generate a meaningful workplace. Certainly there will
be great benefit from the reduced footprint, almost invisible parking and all of the appropriate technology that Mr. Foster has a proven track record with delivering. Unfortunately, this does not guarantee a rich and supportive architectural enviornment in terms of human use and behavior.

The physical form of the project raises concerns. Firstly, the 'closed' form, that being a circle or torus, really does not engage the environment nor the user as other circular buildings have demonstrated. I would reference the conference space and cafeteria for the ESA-ESTEC (European Space Center), in Nordwijk, the Nederland by Dr. Aldo Van Eyck. Dr. Van Eyck, a recognized master of the circle, demonstrates with sophisticated formal literacy, a truly fractal form, a configurattion that exhibits multiple reciprocity with itself and the surrounding environment. Because of this formal configuration there exist multiple options for experience, access and use. Importantly in such a rich 'open field' of form, one can form cognitave associations that are important in terms of identity....in the torus buiding type proposed by
Mr. Jobs and Mr. Foster such spatial association and identity will not be present.
Fosters form brings to mind the type know as the panopticon, an example of which is the radial prison wherein one guard can watch every inmate....Is this type of control the objective of Mr. Jobs?
Apple is now known, more and more for its
issues with control, (products, material, technology and employees), and a 'point control' form is the penultimate physical expression that would support this agenda. Certainly
the transulcent images from above are compelling and perhaps Mr. Foster can desicrate the association with the panopticon, however when we view the images from ground or human perspective the building looks similar to any other low rise corporate campus, and having the 'largest' pieces of curved glass in the world are not going to carry much meaning or significance.

Contrary to your critic's statement that all the environmental beauty is on the inside, Jobs is planning to surround the building with woods and has kept it's profile low and in harmony with the surrounding community. This was made clear in his presentation, had you watched it until the end. Too bad your home town of Omaha doesn't take the same approach and keeps on building the ugliest buildings I have ever seen!!!!!