The overall June rating was at 45.9, virtually unchanged from the May 2012 number of 45.8. (The ABI is rated with a neutral number of 50 representing “no changes” in billings. Numbers below 50 indicate a decrease in billings and numbers above 50 indicate an increase in billings.)

Two regions show a reduction in the rate of decreasing fees (not to be confused with an actual “increase”. The Midwest (48.0) indicates a reduction in the decrease of fees by 2.6% while the South Region (47.6) indicates a reduction in decrease of 3.3% over the previous month.

Conversely, the other two regions show an acceleration of fee reductions. The Northeast (46.4) increased fee reductions by 4.5% and the West (44.3) continued to tank with an increase in fee reductions by an additional 6.9%.

In every region, the industry is far below the highs reported earlier this year. The Midwest is off by 14.3% from the high in February of 56.0. The South is off by 12.5% of the high of 54.4 in November. The Northeast is off by 11.8% from the December high of 52.6 and finally the West is off by only 2.9% from the “high” of 45.6 – which is to say that the West has not crossed into positive territory in the last 18 months. (We have calculated only 18 months historical data.)

Sector analysis clearly illustrates the most affected areas. The Commercial / Industrial sectors are off by 7.5% from May with a reading of 46.9 for June. This represents a 16.3% drop from the high set as recently as March 2012 with a score of 56.0.

The Multi-Family Residential sector is virtually unchanged from May with a June reading of 49.0, up .2% but still down 12.2% from the high in November 2011.

The Institutional sector comes in at 46.0 up from 45.6 in May. While this represents a slowing in reductions from the previous month, this number is still down 10.3% from the high of 51.3 set in December of 2011.

To summarize, every sector & region is down significantly from the highs set in late 2011 and early 2012.

As seen on TV.

We are now entering the period where the Architectural Billings Index (ABI) becomes prophetic. The ABI presents an image of construction activity approximately 9 months in advance.  As shown in figure 3 below, the ABI experienced positive territory from November 2011 through March 2012. This means that from July 2012 through December 2012 there will be a noticeable increase in construction activity – Followed by a gigantic ‘THUD’ just after the election in November. (Coincidence?)

Expect lower unemployment during this period as the construction industry (the largest single industry in the nation) experiences a short lived boom. But don’t expect the liberal press to give the full story. Whether through ignorance or intent, the press is likely to report the good news – completely out of context and without regard to analysis. They sure as hell will not report the looming bad news, which could negatively affect their Golden Child’s presidential election.

A more perfect example of the media bias is directly illustrated within the ABI itself.

In August 2011, the AIA reported an unexpected (and unprecedented) spike in the ABI. They reported that the ABI had jumped 6.3 points in a single month to 51.4. The media immediately pounced on the report as a sure sign of an economy that is roaring back to life. As dutiful little liberal zombies they simply reported the numbers fed to them and never bothered to investigate.

Had they even gave a cursory look at the data they would have seen that the number reported was a mathematical impossibility. The number reported (51.4) was 2.4 points higher than the highest number (49.0) shown in all sectors. No “average” number can ever be higher than the highest number from a dataset.  It is just not possible.  The real number should have been reported as 47.6, a more realistic 2.5 points higher than the previous month.

But liberal reporters – “report”, they don’t “investigate”. In addition, they rarely issue retractions. When they must reluctantly issue a retraction it is often far removed from the original story and receives only a fraction of the press as the false report. In this situation, we could not find a single retraction of the report – not even from the AIA itself. It seems that non-government entities are not obligated by law to issue a revised report, so why bother?

Incidentally, in the following month the ABI “self-corrected” with a number of 46.9, essentially erasing the record setting jump in architectural fees for August. One could hear the sound of crickets chirping over the reports from the media in September. Again, there was no explanation for the anomaly. No attempt to understand what happened or why the sudden jump was followed by a crash – just business as usual.

But fear not – The Critical Architect is here to report the real story. Be sure to join our mailing list to get the real critic’al analysis that architecture has been missing.

Figure 1. – ABI by Region

Figure 2. – ABI by Sector

Figure 3. – Construction Spending Forecast

Author: Barry D. Yatt | ISBN 0-471-16967-6 | Wiley & Sons – 1998 | NCARB Monograph Series

Publishers Description

(From NCARB website)

Although building codes and standards are often seen as obstacles to design excellence, NCARB’s newly published monograph, Cracking the Codes, makes them accessible by promoting a sound understanding of regulatory issues—without overwhelming the reader with minutiae.

• Monograph chapters move through each stage of the planning process to identify and consolidate the basic regulatory requirements that must be addressed.
• The monograph covers zoning ordinances and covenants, as well as rules related to accessibility, historic preservation, environmental quality, and consumer protection, among other critical issues.
• Information is extensively cross-referenced to make topics easy to find. A uniform methodology is applied to each regulatory issue.
• Unique feature: a two-part quiz. Either quiz may be taken in any order. The first quiz covers chapters 1-6, and the second quiz covers chapters 7-12. Quiz #2 meets the Texas requirement for one hour of instruction in issues related to barrier-free design.

Author
Barry D. Yatt, FAIA, CSI, is an associate professor at The Catholic University of America’s School of Architecture and Planning.

Continuing Education and Cost Information
Monograph and two quizzes:
$325 ($225 for current NCARB Record holders)

340 pages
8 PDUs and 8 AIA LUs in health, safety, and welfare (HSW) and Sustainable Design (SD) per quiz

Critical Architect Review

With one of my State Registrations looming, I found myself to be short a couple of Continuing Education Units (CEU’s) and began searching for some credits that I could pick up quickly.  Like a moth to a flame I sometimes find myself drawn to pour more money into the NCARB cartel, so I started searching their website and came across “Cracking the Codes” by Barry D. Yatt, FAIA, CSI.

“This looks pretty good,” I said to myself as I read through the description. The book is divided into two sections, each worth 8 CEU’s. “Fantastic! That will put me over the top with extra credit to be applied for next year” I said with a boastful tone as if I had just managed to use my unique prowess to discover some dark secret known only to a select few.

I swallowed a little vomit as I entered my credit card information for the $325 (non-member) price. My brain quickly ran through the numbers to determine that even with this extraordinary cost I will still be saving money by not being a member of this insidious organization.

The book itself is very well written.  Mr. Yatt does a fine job of explaining the rationale and origins of building codes in general. In addition, he is able to convey how to use that information in everyday architectural practice. This is no easy feat for something as mind-numbing as “Building Codes”. When I purchased the book, it was my hope that the author would be able to present such historical information in a way that wouldn’t make me fall asleep… and Mr. Yatt did just fine.

But there is one major flaw with this publication that didn’t occur to me when purchasing. In addition, the NCARB website (intentionally?) makes no reference to probably the most important fact about this book:

It was published in 1998, and is intimately tied to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) as well as BOCA, and the yet to be published International Building Code (IBC).

This conveniently undisclosed fact would probably have made me look elsewhere. Despite my urgent need for gaining a couple of extra CEU’s.

While the general, historical knowledge contained in the book is interesting and has value, the commentary is so intertwined with these specific building codes that the entire book is now completely obsolete. If the author had more foresight to omit references to specific code sections, and focus instead on the historical significance and applications of the code, the book would have had a longer shelf life. As it stands, the book is only as good as the current (1997) Building Code remains in effect.

In the last 14 years, the UBC & BOCA have been completely replaced with the IBC. Which itself has undergone extensive revisions and alterations since the draft copy was introduced and to which this publication references extensively.

Of course, old timers like me have the ability to weed through the obsolete references and take with us the essence of the thought. However the newer generations of Architects may not be as familiar with this context and may even be led astray. How embarrassing it might be for one of these young lads to approach a more senior Architect and ask to see current copy of BOCA for study?

In the final analysis, “Cracking the Codes” should have been discontinued 10 years ago (at least). Its continued sale on the NCARB website only illustrates how NCARB is nothing more than another corporate profit machine hiding from the IRS under the guise of “non-profit” status. If they actually cared about Architects, or their continuing education, they wouldn’t be peddling outdated educational material. Because to do so proves that their only motivation is “profit.”

I want to make it clear that the fact that the book is outdated is not the fault of the author. Had I purchased this book back in 1998, I would have easily given this book a full Two Thumbs Up.

Unfortunately, neither time nor building codes stand still and since this book is now completely outdated, I must reluctantly give it – Two Thumbs Down.

The Northeast showed strong gains while the Midwest and South were mildly optimistic. The West remains at a desperate level. The ABI rounded out nearly dead even at 50.5 for the national average. (50 is considered to be dead even: no gains, no losses)

While any number above 50 is considered to be a gain, the Midwest is down from their high in February and the South is down from their high in December 2011. The Northeast has been on a steady rise since December 2011 when they crossed into positive territory. As for the West, they have been essentially negative and flat since September 2011.

As usual, the AIA does a disservice to the architectural community by spinning a rosy (glass half full) picture of the situation which is oftentimes divorced from reality.

Case and point is the commentary from Jennifer Riskus (I assume standing in for Kermit Baker) who highlights an increase of 1200 architectural jobs (from January to March) as if that is optimistic. It might be, if not for the fact that over 25,000 Architects have lost their job since 2008. The figures presented are also (intentionally?) misleading by indicating that the Architectural Sector grew to 153,200 jobs.

The 153k number presented actually represents all ancillary engineering & drafting positions related to architecture. Actual “Architectural” jobs are closer to 72,000. Even if we assume that those 1200 jobs quoted by Ms. Riskus are entirely “Architectural”, then I suppose that we are to be excited for an increase of 1.6%

Of course, that increase falls down to a measly 0.7% if we use Ms. Riskus’ “Sector” number of 153,200.

Not included in any of these numbers are the influx of new college graduates who will not even get the chance to be counted and likely would have negated the entire “new jobs” theory.

The reality of the situation is that the Architectural industry has shed over 25,000 jobs when compared to the 2008 high of 96,480 and salaries for those who do remain employed have been completely flat for the last 3 years.

Below are the Actual Employment Numbers for Architects, compiled from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) from 1999 – 2011. Unfortunately, we won’t know the numbers for 2012 until well after the next election.

Again, please note that these are the actual, physically counted numbers of real people who actually have real jobs – not extrapolated & fake data from “unemployment” figures. (Which is like trying to calculate how many employees you hired by counting the number of people you fired. It’s idiotic.)

In this regard, all States are not created equal. Some are more hostile to the architectural community than others. This “hostility” takes form in the application of regulative barriers set up by the governing board of architects that increase the cost & desirability of practicing architecture.

It is important to know which States are at the head of the game – in terms of hostility towards architects. So I have created a “Hostility Index” comprised of 7 different metrics which analyze and rate the barriers that States apply to our profession. These barriers include initial registration requirements, continuing education requirements, fees and penalties.

Since the practice of architecture doesn’t exist in a vacuum of business dynamics, I have applied these metrics to the “America’s Top States for Business – 2011” data conducted by CNBC. This data is developed with input from business groups including the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness.  The study ranks each State in 10 different metrics that include the Cost of Doing Business; Workforce; Quality of Life; Economy; Transportation; Technology; Education; Business Friendliness; Access to Capital & the Cost of Living.

The result is “America’s Top States for Practicing Architecture”.

The Top 5 Best States to Practice Architecture

1.  Colorado – Hostility Index = 16
2. Virginia – Hostility Index = 24
3. Georgia – Hostility Index = 27
4. Pennsylvania – Hostility Index = 27
5. Arizona – Hostility Index = 29

The Top 5 Worst States to Practice Architecture

46. Delaware – Hostility Index = 93
47. Alaska – Hostility Index = 96
48. Mississippi – Hostility Index = 100
49. Arkansas – Hostility Index = 100
50. New Mexico – Hostility Index = 110

The results of the “Hostility Index” when applied to the Top States for Business model yield some interesting results. For example: Texas, which comes in 2^nd on the CNBC list of best States for business, drops to 19^th on the Best States for Architecture list while Arizona, which ranks 24^th on the CNBC list, jumps up to 5^th when associated to the architectural industry. On the flip side, Arkansas which is in the middle of the CNBC pack at 33^rd, drops all the way down to 49^th.

These results validate the methodology used because a State that is good for business in a general environment, may not necessarily be good for architects due to the particulars of regulation in that industry. Conversely a State that may have a poor business environment generally, may be enhanced by a more hands off approach to regulation.

Of course, combining a poor business model State with aggressive and hostile regulation, as we see in the case of New Mexico  (a State that ranked 43^rd in the CNBC model ) will result in a disastrous ranking for the architectural profession:  50^th

Below is the complete ranking list of the Best & Worst Places to Practice Architecture.

Rank (Best to Worst)| State | Hostility Index

TEDprize.org has announced that the winner of the 2012 Ted Prize is, “The City 2.0”

TED, which is an acronym for “Technology, Entertainment, Design” was established in 1984 as a think tank to bring together these three industries. Each year, a $100,000 award is given by the group to one individual who best represents the ideals of these elements. In addition, the recipient is granted “One wish to change the World”, whereby the sponsors and members agree to take steps to accomplish that wish for the year.

As an example, in 2011 the winner was an artist/photographer named JR who wished,

“…for you to stand up for what you care about by participating in a global art project, and together we’ll turn the world…INSIDE OUT.”

The result of this was the Inside Out – Project where participants upload a photo; the photo is then turned into a poster which is then mailed back to the participant so that they can display the poster – and take a picture of it being displayed in a public setting.

Ok, so for future reference we now know that it is ok to waste time, paper, ink & contribute to greenhouse gas emissions so long as your goal is global art awareness. Check.

But for the last 7 years the TED prize has gone to an individual – for their creative genius. This year, it goes to an idea. According to the press release the TED prize will bring together,

“a group of visionaries — urban planners, architects, technologists, authors, policy makers, and economists — to act as advocates for The City 2.0 and craft a wish capable of inspiring collaborative action by many“.

The panel will then unveil the wish on February 29, 2012 at their annual conference.

Three things bother me about this.

The first is that they don’t disclose who these, “visionaries” are, although we could probably guess.  Pick a name and put the initials: FAIA, USGBC or LEED AP after it and you will have most of the panel.  Follow that up with a list of elected officials that have a (D) after their name to round out the panel. Not that there is anything wrong with that – just a blaring observation.

The second thing is that this is old news.  Architects, Planners and Futurists have been planning and promoting the “Future City” for as long as recorded history. For Pete’s sake, the Romans had a “Future City” in 45 BC with indoor plumbing. Archeologists have even found sewer systems dating back to 2600 BC.

After indoor plumbing came electricity. Then the use of steel and elevators brought us the High Rise. How about Insulation and Air-Conditioning? What about the transition from horse and carriage to automobiles and streetcars? Don’t they get any credit?

They call it “the City 2.0” – Really? Perhaps it should be called “the City 20.0”, their hubris is thick.

The third thing that bothers me is that this panel of “visionaries” won’t even come up with anything new. Sure, they may have a few new ponies in the show – but I’m certain it will still be the same old 3 ring circus. Let me get out my crystal ball and run it down for you.

Recycling –The city of the future will have all kinds of ways to lower the carbon footprint. It will be built with recycled materials and will have all sorts of recycling systems. Trash, sewer and water will all be recycled. Rain water will be collected.

Green Energy – Of course, the City 20.0 will use all those wonderful clean energy sources. Geo-thermal, Wind, Solar. Maybe even some new ones like – Ocean wave power or Clean Plasma.  Those evil fossil fuels that have powered our industrialization and made the United States the greatest nation that ever existed on Earth – will not be allowed in the City 20.0

Public Transportation – The City 20.0 will be a public transportation Utopia. The Streets will be lined with lush gardens which are only interrupted by the occasional public transportation “bus stop”. But it won’t be a bus that picks you up. No, it will be a state of the art electric vehicle – a people distribution system, whipping pedestrians around like baggage at the airport.

Green Roofs & Walls – These roofs and walls are not just for show. These urbanites demand that they grow their food locally. A fine idea, but realistically it takes 1.5 acres of land to provide for the needs of each person. So, while it may help lower imports into the city, it certainly won’t provide all their needs. But it looks good and it makes us feel better.

High Tech Gadgetry – The City 20.0 will undoubtedly have state of the art technology. Our homes will be filled with all of the coolest and greatest gizmos. Don’t forget the Free WiFi phone and internet. In this city, everyone gets free minutes.

The City of the Future might be underground. Or it might be elevated on stilts like as we envisioned with the Jetson’s. It may be enclosed in a dome to protect us from the elements (a really dumb idea – but that is another discussion).

There will be parks and bike trails and jogging paths and dog parks – and everyone will be rich and happy and crime will be a thing of the past. The City 20.0 will be the pinnacle of human civilization.

Right. The point is, whether it is City 2.0 or City 20.0 – it is all old news. We have heard all this before. In 2007, the History Channel even had a “City of the Future” competition. So what is the real motivation behind the new TED prize?

Could it be a new push by the USGBC to urbanize Americans? Are the TED organizers just setting the stage to fund the creation of a new organization of “experts” who will later advise future city planners or even presidents on how we should change our cities? Are they gearing up for a new wave of “green” building regulations?

Or could the motivation for the choice of this latest prize be something as simple as good old fashioned greed or crony capitalism? I’m very interested in finding out how many of these “visionaries” have been having lunch with the TED organizers…and for how long? How many of them have been seeking government grants? How many of them have worked for TED Sponsors? Who, in the Environmental Class is the muscle behind this latest endeavor? Where does Al Gore’s “carbon credits” connection fit in?

We may never know the answers to these questions. The process of selection is not exactly what one would call, “transparent”.  But a good rule of thumb is that whenever liberal groups get together to discuss “possible solutions”, you can bet someone is getting richer – and the rest of us are getting poorer.

At the end of the day this project will be one more gigantic social engineering experiment – count on it.

Two Thumbs Down for “The City 2.0” from the Critical Architect.

Let us begin by examining the feasibility of such a concept from a structural and kinetics perspective.

History of Revolving Structures

The concept of a revolving building or spaces is nothing new. In fact, there are dozens of rotating restaurants in the United States and many more throughout the rest of the world. The first revolving restaurant was built in Germany in 1959. In 1961, the “La Ronde” restaurant in Honolulu was the first revolving restaurant to be built in the United States. The Architect was John Graham of Seattle.

In every case, the structure elements, exterior walls and ceiling of the structure is stationary and it is only the outer dining area floor that actually moves. Like a platform sitting on ball bearings. There are three reasons for this. 1. Electrical, Mechanical & Plumbing systems (duh) 2. Access to the space can (should) only be made by stepping across a single joint in the floor and within an open space that circumscribes the structure. One would not want to create a condition where a severed limb might result if the rotating portion were to cross two perpendicular walls or openings. 3. Vertical Access and Egress by elevator & stair.

The Structure.

With the “Rotating Tower” design, there is no structural reason that would prevent a portion of the tower from rotating about an axis. Span limitations are based entirely on the strength of the material in a cantilever. Which would probably limit the section that is cantilevered to about 30′. Assuming a really good truss system. 

However the problem with this concept is not with the structure, it is with the mechanical & electrical systems.

MP&E.

As presented, the design is an absolute failure in terms of Mechanical, Plumbing & Electrical. To be even remotely feasible, a rotating tower design would require that the Kitchen, Bathrooms & Utility Rooms be stationary and remain within the core itself. This means that the tiny narrow core, shown in the video, is misleading. It would have to be much larger in order to accomodate the kitchen, bathrooms & laundry facilities, as well as two sets of stairs & and at least 4 elevators (a small tower).

While it is technically possible to transfer electricity from the stationary space into the moving space through a “bushing”; such as is found in an electric motor; to do so with a live 120V system on each and every unit is a recipe for disaster. In terms of both safety and reliability. Yet, without such a system the rotating spaces wouldn’t be able to have lighting or even power outlets for appliances.

Of course, there’s the small problem of finding a building department willing to ignore the IBC and let you build large sections of spaces without any power (for wall outlets). But then again, this project could be built overseas where they have much lower building standards.

Forget about attempting to transfer Gas, Water & Sewer from the moving section to the core. There simply are no reliable systems in existance that can effectively accomplish such a task. While a good designer might be able to design around rooms that would require gas & sewer, every space needs water for fire sprinklers.

Therefore, the rotating space could be no deeper than the reach of the sprinklers, as sprayed from the stationary core section. Currently, this is about 12-15 feet.

ROI

In terms of a Return on Investment, the cost of the units would have to be extraordinarily high. As in, “several thousand dollars per square foot” kind of high. Each unit would have to occupy an entire floor in order to avoid walking into your neighbors bedroom from your kitchen. That is, unless the space only rotates 180 degrees.

Waterproofing

A gap would necessarily need to exist between each rotating Floor / Ceiling. This would allow for both movement of the structure for seismic & wind as well as prevent any potential for binding up of the floors. This creates a point of entry for water infiltration. It also becomes a trap for debris. It might be possible to close this space with some sort of flexible membrane, but to do so would create another costly maintenance issue.

Getting Dizzy

At a 60 foot radius the maximum acceptable rotational speed in a restaurant is approximately 6 degrees of rotation per minute (one full rotation per hour). This is slow enough that most people don’t “feel” the rotation. As for long term effects of rotational motion, there are no studies so we just don’t know what will happen to the human brain.

The Design Concept video shows the tower rotating at a ridiculously dizzying speed. Of course, one would simply state that the designers couldn’t show the actual rotation speed because the video would take an hour and be about as interesting as watching paint dry.

However the “coolness” of the towers movement is what makes it so engaging from an outside perspective. Without being able to actually see the movement, it’s just another tower. One may notice that it’s shape has changed from what we saw a hour ago – but so what?  As an owner of a unit, is it really worth it to me to spend $100 million so that other people can be entertained as they watch my house rotate?

Conclusion

The value in all habitable structures is what they do for the occupants of that structure. In this case the only real value is that the view constantly changes. But is that really an asset? To accomplish this task, each resident would have to occupy an entire floor anyway. Which means that residents already have a 360 degree view. Full floor units can be found everywhere; is it really worth the cost to have one that moves?

In addition, the orientation of a structure or spaces within a structure is better served (and more eco-friendly) when the location of the sun can be determined and is predictable. With a rotating space, this is not possible. Some days the morning sun might blast in your bedroom window – other days it wouldn’t. What happens when your living room happens to be pointing directly to the south at the hottest part of the day?

The bottom line is that this concept is one of those things that “looks cool” at first observation but in reality it creates more problems than it solves.

In my book, this concept gets the full – Two Thumbs Down.

The new 5.32 million square foot facility will become home base for 11,000 employees. Located on a 175 acre site in the city of Cupertino, CA the donut shaped structure has an outer radius of 760’ with a huge open air interior courtyard (donut hole) with a radius of 581’.

When originally proposed to the city council in June, Steve Jobs referred to the structure as, “a little like a spaceship landed” but let’s face it, it really looks more like a donut than a spaceship. But hey, who doesn’t like donuts?

Perhaps Los Angeles Times Architecture Critic Christopher Hawthorne doesn’t like donuts. He created a stir when he referred to the design as, “a Retrograde Cocoon.” He went on to call the building “old –fashioned” and likened it to the 50’s & 60’s design of the Pentagon. Maybe Hawthorne would feel better if we referred to the project as a “bagel.” Do they like bagels at the Times?

Entry of Apple Campus by Foster & Partners Architects

While it has been quietly kept under wraps, the architect of record turns out to be Foster+Partners; a well respected architecture firm with offices all over the world. Curiously, as of this printing you still can find no reference to the Apple Campus project on their website. But this is no surprise. Secrecy has always been standard operating procedure for Steve Jobs.

The truth is that the design of the building is anything but “old-fashioned”. Partially underground; Photo-voltaic cells on the roof; Seismic Isolation Pads; Extensive day lighting techniques; Jogging Trails and a Fitness Club are just some of the features of the enormous facility.

The design has been accused of being, “out of human scale” but I would have to disagree with this completely. Human scale is not defined by what someone in an airplane would see if they are flying over the structure. Human scale is determined by close proximity and lines of sight.

By examination of the plans it is easy to see that sight lines have been carefully manipulated through the use of landscaping and curving walkways. Since the building itself is only 4 stories above grade, and curvature of the structure limits the amount of mass that one can view at any given time, from a pedestrian perspective (which is the only view that a person could experience the building) scale of the structure is not only appropriate, but very well tailored.

Arial view of Proposed Apple Campus.

If issues or faults can be found with this design, it is not in the esthetics of the architecture. With an outer circumference of nearly a mile (4,773 feet) and in interior courtyard diameter of 1,162 feet I suspect that employees and/or visitors will be issued roller skates to move around the building. The major flaw with this structure is the shear distance that exists between departments.

In normal (large scale) corporate office buildings, the distance between departments is broken up vertically, and elevators are typically used to move between departments. The new Apple facility uses both vertical elements and long horizontal corridors. Of course, shortcuts can be taken across the interior courtyard, and certain divisions could be located in logical proximity, but no matter how you slice it, the people in this building are doing an awful lot of walking.

Maybe that is why there are no fat people working for Apple … but I digress.

After a full review, I can really find only two other issues with the design. First, this building is going to generate a lot of tourism. Whether Apple wants to admit it or not, the public is going to want to see this facility. They might as well plan for this now and include a visitor center that is large enough to handle the traffic. The center currently proposed is way to small.

Second, with all this space you would think that the Corporate Auditorium could have been worked in to the main facility. Instead, it is located far away, with access by a long underground tunnel. This gives the impression that its location was an afterthought, rather than a planned design element. Although one can not help but notice a similarity of the layout with that of a computer hard drive – if viewed in plan view from a distance.

Other than that, the design of the structure exhibits the kind of style & environmentalism that one would expect from someone like Steve Jobs. It is a (mostly) efficient design that provides for adequate day-lighting and connection with the elements. With proper interior design, this structure might just be able to “take off” after all.

Two Thumbs Up from The Critical Architect.

Sibylle Allgaier © Heliphoto

According to Fentress, the design was inspired by the mythological god – Janus, who is the God of beginnings and transitions. In Roman mythology, Janus is a two-faced god who simultaneously looks both toward the future and the past. This expression is manifested in the project by blending the architecture on one side of the structure with the existing campus style and on the other side providing a more modern or contemporary style.

I think I understand how Janus might feel about this project. I myself have two faces with regards to this project. With one face, I like the design and style (mostly) of the building. I believe that the building has indeed succeeded in fulfilling its mission in a practical and useful way. But with the other face, when I hear these goofy “inspired by” explanations given by some architects – I just want to puke.

Was this design really inspired by the two faced God – Janus? Or did they just make up some stupid crap to make themselves sound intelligent and justify their own design intent? My experience has shown that this type of artistic fodder is really only intended for the “greater than thou” pompous art critics at the Los Angeles Times, and rarely any sort of actual inspiration. But then again, what do I know?

What I do know is that the client appears to be happy. In an interview for ArchDaily, Associate Vice Chancellor and Campus Architect Rebekah Gladson, FAIA said, “The designers masterfully integrated the Gateway Humanities Building into the heart of our campus. We gave them a challenging vision to create ‘a sense of unforeseen possibilities.’ What they achieved surpassed our expectations. This innovative and sustainable building will be appreciated for years to come.”

Sibylle Allgaier © Heliphoto

Well, the “masterfully” part of Gladson’s statement may be just a little bit of hyperbole. Matching an exterior façade or blending with any type of existing architectural design is not exactly rocket science. Any first year drafting student can do that. As well, the contemporary, undulating or curvy glass facade on the opposite side of the building is not exactly ground breaking.

The slab to slab glazing is a fine way to minimize the interstitial space between floors while providing a horizontal line to break up the vertical element, but with it comes the ungainly use of window pockets on the interior.  

While unfinished concrete can be use to make a statement or enhance a design, often it just speaks of a way to “cheap out” in one area so that the money can be used for the benefit of another. Such it is with this project. This design uses unfinished concrete both inside and out. This is unfortunate because there is no readily apparent benefit to doing so. It doesn’t really contribute to the design. A skim coat and some paint could have really kicked the design up a notch.

Sibylle Allgaier © Heliphoto

The LEED Platinum certification is a fine thing, but it comes at some expense to the design. The “random” size window panels with random spandrel inserts in the curvy window wall is probably an attempt to conceal the fact that the Architect needed to achieve a higher ‘U’ and ‘R’ value than could be obtained by just using a Low-E glass alone. If I had to guess, I would say that there is probably not one more panel than is absolutely necessary and required to obtain the minimum rating. But again, this is just a guess. Regardless, it is unfortunate because the design would have been better served by eliminating the spandrels altogether.

Still, the Humanities Gateway is a fine design that completes the intended program with interest and style. At the end of the day what really matters – is a satisfied client.

The Critical Architect gives this project Two Thumbs Up.

###

Photos used by permission – Sibylle Allgaier © Heliphoto 
www.heliphoto.net

Lilypad City by Architect Vincent Callebaut

The “Floating Ecopolis for Climate Refugees” (aka the Lilypad City) by French Architect, Vincent Callebaut was a concept design proposed in 2008 to deal with the effects of Global Warming as the polar ice caps melt and oceans rise; displacing land fairing inhabitants along the coasts.

Callebaut asserts that the earth’s temperature may rise as much as 1° Celsius in the 21^st century, causing our oceans to rise as much as one full meter and displacing as many as 50 million people. He further asserts that if the oceans rise two meters, as many as 300 million people could be displaced.

So instead of the people moving inland (slowly over the span of 100 years as the water rises) the architect has designed a “unique” solution for all those people who have been (or will be) displaced by global flooding – move them onto the water.

But this city doesn’t just rise up and down with the tide. Callebaut wants the entire city to be able to float all around the world, moving on natural ocean currents. Callebaut says his lily pads can hold up to 50,000 people and won’t just sit there, they will move all around the world.

 Oh my, where do I start?

Putting aside the controversial nature of whether global warming is or is not actually occurring, if (for the sake of argument) we give environmentalists the benefit of the doubt, the 1 or 2 meter rise that they speak of would occur over a time span of 100-200 years. So it not like people living along the coast are going to wake up one morning (in a surprise) and find that their feet are wet. There is plenty of time to clear land and move inland.

So, I’m puzzled as I try to figure out exactly what problem Vincent Callebaut is trying to solve. I’m even more puzzled in how he thinks that this design solves anything.

From the renderings, it appears that the facility will use built in windmills for power generation and we may assume that the other obvious problems such as desalinization plants (for water), sewage treatment & refuge may be worked in to the design. But where exactly are these 50,000 people going to grow their food? It takes .5 acres of land per person just to grow enough to survive and the design presented shows hardly any open land that could be used for agriculture.

Are there massive hydroponics facilities?  Are these people going to be forced to live on fish & hydroponic vegetables? Or is there a cattle ranch and slaughterhouse somewhere within the “pad” interior? What about chickens or sheep? So, what exactly is the plan, to import everything?

Floating City sits off "unflooded" coastal city. Architect Vincent Callebaut

I’m also curious as to what keeps the facility from smashing on the rocks or bottoming out on the ocean floor. Surely there must be some sort of propulsion, right? I’m not exactly sure how reasonable it is to think that you can get enough power to move such a monstrosity with electric batteries fueled by wind power, but maybe there are diesel engines that can be used for emergencies. Or better yet – Nuke Power.

Once a Lilypadian, always a Lilypadian. I guess once you become a citizen of the Lily pad city you are pretty much stuck there. It’s not big enough for an airport, sea planes don’t land in open water and helicopters pilots don’t fly out into the open ocean. I guess if the city happens to be close to shore (and near a city that had the foresight to move inland) you could just take a boat into town.

While you are there picking up supplies, (and wondering why you live on a boat with 50,000 other people when you could be living right here, on dry land) you might consider going into the import business, since your city would have no natural resources with which to manufacture goods.

But then again, how would Lilypadians pay for those imports? What does the Lilypad economy look like? Do they make – anything? Do they have textile facilities? Metallurgy? Or do they only import and consume? What value would these people bring to the world ports they visit?

Then there’s the legal stuff. What do you think the odds are that any nation is going to let the lilypad city, which is owned by some other nation, pull up and park off their coastline? And if their old country still exists, and wasn’t wiped off the map by the flood, then what the hell are they doing living on the damn lilypad in the first place?

Perhaps the Lilypad city not a city at all, but a gigantic ocean liner with people who are on vacation and have money to spend. This would actually make more sense. Maybe it is just another themed resort where one could buy a condo or timeshare and vacation for two weeks a year. For that matter, who financed this dream city, the displaced “refugees”? Not likely.

At the end of the day, the design is poorly thought out and doesn’t provide a solution to anything. Unless the earth gets completely covered in water like the movie Waterworld; which isn’t possible even if every ounce of ice melted; the whole concept is really just a dumb idea.

Two Thumbs Down.

Video Source: YouTube

The October score of 49.4 is up from the September number of 46.9 but as we know, anything below 50 is STILL a downturn, which is why I prefer to word the phrase “Less Bad News” as oppose to the intentionally misleading and overly optimistic “slowing of decline” wording that the AIA likes to use in the report.

There are two sectors that actually do show improvement: Residential (51.3) and Commercial/Industrial (53.5)

Employment in Architecture is still getting worse. 1,500 jobs were shed during the month of September (the most recent month with data) however the report suggests that this is due to “summer interns” due to the fact that the highest payrolls were reported in June, July and August.

For a complete review of the report, visit the AIA page.