“Silicon Valley has been the cradle of a series of innovations that, over the last decades, have propelled technology and [the] world economy, but all of the resources, all of the intelligence, has been invested into the immaterial, the digital realm, the internet,” asserts Bjarke Ingels of BIG at the beginning of a new video released today by Google (posted at the end of this article). David Radcliffe, the Vice President of Real Estate and Workplace Services at Google, continues: "Tech really hasn’t adopted a particular language for buildings.” Google hopes to change that, unveiling an ambitious new master plan for their Mountain View campus designed collaboratively by Bjarke Ingels Group and Heatherwick Studio.
Radcliffe explains that Google scoured the world for the architecture practices they found most innovative. "The BIG Studios – they’re ambitious, they do a lot of very community-focused projects and that was very compelling to us,” while Thomas Heatherwick "has this attention to human scale and beauty that I haven’t seen in anyone before.” The first collaborative effort by the two well-respected practices, the new Google campus plan will replace the existing set of nondescript office buildings that span four sites. "You bring those two together.. and you just have this team that does pretty amazing stuff," exclaims Radcliffe.
Indeed: the video reveals ambitious, innovative renders. Eschewing immoveable concrete edifices, the campus would consist of a series of light-weight structures that can be moved around to accommodate new projects and product development as they unfold. Covered in transparent canopies, the structures will be climate-controlled but allow in natural light. Interwoven by a series of bike paths, landscaping, and cafes, the project aims "to blur the distinction between our buildings and nature." With a heavy rhetorical emphasis on the natural beauty of Silicon Valley, the release explicates their aim to be both energy-efficient as well as to "bring new life to the unique local environment, from enhancing burrowing owl habitats to widening creek beds."
Coming on the heels of ongoing projects at competing tech firms, in particular the Norman Foster's donut-shaped Apple campus and Frank Gehry's surprisingly verdant plans for Facebook, the BIG-Heatherwick designs offer a new vision for the future of Silicon Valley. At stake – if you believe the hyped-up rhetoric of the Google video (and I'm not sure I do) – is nothing less than the defining of the architectural typology of the Internet Age.*
For more information, check out the press release here.
*as determined by its major corporate players.
94 Comments
If its all about need, are we scrapping venustas? No, of course not.
How do we turn anxiety and frustration over environmental degradation into practical actions and projects that people actually enjoy? It seems like BIG is in a better position to accomplish something that moves the profession forward with large high-profile projects like this one than the many high-end boutique firms making finely crafted luxury interiors for the very wealthy that exist entirely under the public's radar.
Here's a plan:
Source here.
Why don't they just complete the idea/design further and propose all employees to live under the same canopy? That should solve a few of the creeping urban-related issues.
Actually, I don't even know myself if I'm being sarcastic.
Commentary by James Howard Kunstler:
http://kunstler.com/featured-eyesore-of-the-month/
"Behold the proposed new Google headquarters, Mountain View (Silicon Valley), CA. Google, of course, has enough walking around money in its deep pockets to indulge in the most fantastic architectural status stunt — meaning that the diminishing returns of great wealth and cleverness will bite extra hard. This, uh, structure, by Bjarke Ingles and Thomas Heatherstone employs all the dishonest tropes of our time in order to achieve techno-narcissist lift-off: 1.) the idea that buildings should erase the boundary between being inside and outside; 2) that “nature” is the sovereign remedy for the failure to provide real urbanism; that space functions best when it lacks definition; that work is really just play; and perhaps most insidious, that the modular fabricated materials of today will age gracefully and be repairable. I would not bet on that outcome at all. They say that empires build their most grandiose and grotesque monuments just before they collapse, and Google is kind of a sub-empire of the greater USA techno-clown empire. As the late Rod Serling might say: “…submitted for your approval, a mauseleum for the Information Age….”
"Below, check out the childishly-conceived nature installation in all its greenwashed ambiguity. This is the kind of trendoid “landscape urbanism” crap promoted by the Harvard Graduate School of Design. Basically, a park minus artistry. Looks like it was designed by the late Thomas Kinkaid for a creation museum diorama."
Plenty of other companies also have "enough walking around money in its deep pockets to indulge in the most fantastic architectural status stunts" but they just choose to blow it on generic corporate office space.
Kunstler is a crank. I can't take seriously someone who uses the phrase "Architectural Abortions" and has a blog called "clusterfuck nation".
Also, look at the group of very serious thinkers Google predicts you'd be interested in after searching Kunstler:
Especially John Michael Greer.
Hilarious.
Just don't let this be another hype orgy spawned by some ambitious and disgruntled Google PR guy. I want it to be built so us architecture folks can witness if it's a winner or bold disaster.
Quoteth Larry the Cable guy... Get er done!
Kunstler is a prickly guy, but in this case he's right on the money. I like the term "techno-narcissist" I'm going to start using that one.
Ad hominem attacks on the messenger are the usual response when the critique is hitting a little too close to home.
EKE,
Its just not a strong argument. There isn't any substance to grab on to. Everything he is opposing has been done many times throughout history by beloved buildings.
I get the sense that he's just against this project because its Google and he's trying to find metaphors in the architecture that suit his politics.
Everything he is opposing has been done many times throughout history by beloved buildings.
The end doesn't justify the means. Just because we love Monticello doesn't mean we agree with the fact that it was built upon the backs of slaves. The Coliseum is great as a building but Tigers eating people is kinda fucked up and all.
I don't see any offensive means in this case. Do you? No slaves or tigers. Quite the opposite. The highest minimum wages in the country. I don't see a good justification for opposing the project.
I believe this is the 'we know our planet is fucked, so we are going to make sustainability something that can survive off the grid in a desert, for example, so that when we leave the planet with all the poor fuckers drinkin' oil water and eatin toxin pudding we can build a sustainable bio dome with Pauly Shore included in Mars."..........ever heard of Gaylor Opryland Land Resort? http://archinect.com/blog/article/113280505/random-thought-3-james-oglethopre-savannah-georgia-and-mars ...........holy shit batman? It's been done before in Nashville. Well! god damn these Google guys are behind the times, so let's fly in two guys who not once are together in the video and hype up some Frei Otto knock off-surely more BIG jacked Glenn Small shit- and vaguely pretend we know what Bucky Fuller meant by spaceship earth. It's not elegant because it's half-assed and schematic with some intern learning photoshop to make the expressions........I still would like to see it executed as lightperson suggests and face it this is one form of sustainability....maybe the right people will take over the project, you know like that time SOM did the Freedom Tower by Daniel Libeskind....schematic designers are not always the best solution even if the media likes them, since this is the depth the media is capable............but at this very moment I can't think of a modern day Bucky or Frei Otto......hell John Portman ' s atrium looks better than what BIGie and Featherwicky propose.......
davvid, attacking the messenger (Kunstler) is an old dodge that does not negate his argument.
Starchitects are undoubtedly in a better position to move the profession forward, the problem is that they don't, at least from a sustainability point of view. It's all a failure - whether it's some dreamy bubble or generic corporate office - if it doesn't address our critical issues, and ultimately this is the definition of need. Maybe that's where you are confused. I suspect that you will come to appreciate this more over time as the world continues to decline around you.
I thought I was attacking the critic, not the messenger. EKE was the messenger.
I think this building along with several other high profile projects for innovation-focused companies will end up moving the profession forward. There is an incredible about of pessimism in this thread with very little to support it other than "we know our planet is fucked". Ironically, I bet BIG and his engineers are being much more precise and rigorous regarding sustainable solutions than we are. We can shake our fists and wag our fingers. We're good at that.
John Portman's atrium indeed - having spent a good deal of time there(Hyatt Regency SF) way back in my undergrad days, we would make all these sketches based on Archigram, Bucky Fuller, and Supetstudio - "design the future" this presentation is also like that, a Norman Bel Geddes futureRama(1939 worlds fair) in the wake of the Great Depression, that gave people optimism - this project could too - that's what's needed, a good futureRama that can inspire people to come up with real solutions
we dont need more optimism we need more realism.
Critic / criticism, message / messenger, the same thing.
Inovation focused on selling product is not the same as innovation focused on sustainability. Example: tech products produced by slave labor that are obsoleted by design every 6-8 months.
jla-x, You want realism but I don't think you and Miles are being realistic. Its not even clear what you want Ingels and Google to do differently. Do you want to Google to just disappear? Not build a new headquarters?
They should build it out of wood........i propose two types of sustainability - one the grandson of high-tech architecture (Foster,Rogers, Grimshaw..)which I will call Survivalist Sustainability and the other Cradle to Cradle......let tech find their 'language', I don't mind if this is it.....but yeah the proposal is still half-assed and this is a result of everything Miles and Jla-x are objecting to. Architecture for marketing sake doesn't need to be of much substance, or at least that is what the marketing guys thought.
davvid, hyperbole doesn't make a good argument. Nobody said anything about Google disappearing, although maybe that's not such a bad idea.
BIG (and Google, other starchitects and major corporations as well as everyone else) needs to address the myriad issues raised in this thread that you ignore as if they didn't exist. They are in a better position to do this because they were hired for the project. But they were hired for reasons that precisely the opposite, reasons that have nothing to do with sustainability.
The world is filled with illusions. Your job is to figure out what's real.
Miles,
You're making it seem like BIG was hired to smile and wave at crowds of fans. BIG must design Google a building. If they don't, they will be sued and they will lose. You're overselling this whole PR angle. Any building project that promotes itself as being ecologically concerned is also thinking about PR to some degree. PR doesn't immediately invalidate the work and ideas in the project.
David, what im objecting to is the shallow appearance of sustainability and the illusion of something new when in fact all they are doing is stylizing the status quo. Its a re-branding of the same bad building practices. What angers me is that They have the resources to build whatever they want and this is what they come up with? Its a 5th year final project at best so why is it on here getting so much attention? because its being done by famous people. celebrities. celebrity culture elevates mediocrity. At the end of the day...a turds still a turd.
now, if the goal is primarily experiential or primarily utilitarian then just say that. Dont however guild a regular building in futuristic looking glass and call it hi-tech. thats disingenuous and cheapens the profession.
Back to the Apple v. Google thing, I think BIGoogle was trying very hard to be the anti-Apple here to an extreme degree. Like I said, I hope they build it so that we can see what happens. But maybe it is just another one of those Google pipe dreams to convince us Google is still inventive... (seriously what have they really invented since the search engine?)
Perhaps some of the negative reaction is because of the annoying cult of personality marketing of BIG. The same project could have been proposed by Foster and have an opposite reaction. In a way, BIG's quality is becoming more pedestrian friendly and less pointless formal nonsense... probably a result of the changing tides of architecture culture. But you wonder if the glass curtain is really necessary or if it is just BIG trying hard to put their mark on it.
I wonder if the glass curtain will have the same effect in reality. At the end, it may look more like a Jon Jerde project--a vegas-y populist feel. It will be 'urban' like a mall is urban--that is, a sterile version of urbanism. Interesting, but not sure if that is the desired effect against Apple's powerful steel and glass spaceship.
Lighperson,
Do you think Apple, Google and Facebook might be exploring internet-of-things solutions with their respective starchitect collaborators? If they are not, I think thats a missed opportunity.
You're making it seem like BIG was hired to smile and wave at crowds of fans.
More hyperbole.
PR does invalidate the ideas of the project if those ideas are simply illusions. As far as must design a building goes, nobody has to do anything. BIG is a renowned firm with lots of influence. Let's see them use that influence to raise the bar and transform the substance of architecture. Brad Pitt does more for real architecture than BIG.
You complained before about generic corporate offices. Appearances are only skin deep. If style is ignored they are all generic, they all follow a corporate agenda of power and influence.
This goes right back to viewing architecture as art, which not only discards practical and functional considerations but also makes it entirely subjective. Energy use, water consumption, environmental impact etc. are all things that can be accurately measure, analyzed and compared.
Miles,
"PR does invalidate the ideas of the project if those ideas are simply illusions" ...IF
Renderings are always illusions to some degree. Unrealized concepts and illusions are not the same thing but perhaps close cousins. Anyone who has worked on an architecture project from beginning to end knows that illusions tend to reveal themselves throughout the process. Thats pretty much the definition of realization.
The only info we have right now is fluffy images and fluffy words. IMO, thats fine for now. It signals the projects goals.
---
"Appearances are only skin deep. If style is ignored they are all generic, they all follow a corporate agenda of power and influence."
You are much more of a purist than I am. I don't think power and influence taint creative work. I'm not sure I've ever seen creative work that was entirely removed from forces of power and influence. Have you?
"This goes right back to viewing architecture as art"
I don't see art as some insidious force of superficiality and frivolity. It is subjective to some degree, but its also universal to some degree. I don't see how that is competing with scientific or technocratic policy concerns.
This is not about the illusion of renderings, it's about the illusion of responsibility. The local library, designed by a renowned firm doing global work, was sold as "green" with 3 stories of north-facing glass and a geothermal heating system. The electric bill increased $3,000 per month. If you don't back up the claim with performance the claim was a lie, or an illusion if you prefer. The project is advertised on the firms site as a resounding success and even won a design award a state AIA award, showing just how effective the illusion is.
creative work that was entirely removed from forces of power and influence is ideally known as art. But in our society power and influence ($) rules. And their program is not sustainable, just look at Wall Street, politics, climate change, GMOs, the Middle East, etc. Sustainability is counter to their agenda.
Art vs Architecture
Davvid, I don't think that AppleGoogleFacebook have any ideas, beyond things like Nest that are utility/surveillance control types of things. They are hiring architects now to design their headquarters but that has always been done in industry. The media is interested in the branding impact of the choices, and that is probably why there is a race now to be bolder...it's a part of their corporate logo, to attract drones...er workers. I don't see any larger view regarding architecture, but the connection could be somewhat obvious. The Bjarke quote at the beginning echoes what a lot of archs think... that there isn't enough value placed in the physical world, and how technology has been all focused on clicks.
AGF are monopolies so a bigger change probably won't come from directly them. BIG and Google is trying to find a language for Silicon Valley, perhaps they found it (transparent, cheap, social, derivative, viral). But my view is that digital media should better reflect the values of architecture. Just look at how a rendering of a building gets more attention that thousands of existing ones.....
Miles,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici
http://www.fastcompany.com/3043076/what-the-googleplexs-original-architect-thinks-of-googles-new-headquarters
Here's a good article, repeats some of the issues--cool idea but the tech isn't even there yet, too much light on computer screens, and the flexibility issue is kind of b.s. Disses the apple building but time will tell for both. The right answer will be the one that works best, so place your bets here
To lightpersons point about Apple. Apple spent millions researching and testing their glass stairs and have patents on many of the connections with Steve Jobs as the first name listed. ...........what patents do Google own on physical items, and preferably a successful item and one they didn't buy and call their own after someone else developed it.........where is that link with that guy suing Google over his building system?
"This is not about the illusion of renderings, it's about the illusion of responsibility. The local library, designed by a renowned firm doing global work, was sold as "green" with 3 stories of north-facing glass and a geothermal heating system. The electric bill increased $3,000 per month. If you don't back up the claim with performance the claim was a lie, or an illusion if you prefer. The project is advertised on the firms site as a resounding success and even won a design award a state AIA award, showing just how effective the illusion is."
Good points here, Miles.
seriously what have they really invented since the search engine?
you're kind of out of touch. for one thing, google didn't invent the search engine.
for another thing, google's core business is advertising
for another thing, google has been involved in a lot of things. they were part of the sopa fight against congress, they're building gigabit infrastructure as a way to encourage the failed corporations managing our current infrastructure to upgrade. they're developing new ways to provide wireless internet in rural areas. i'm pretty sure they've had an active hand in the development of html5 and javascript. probably a lot of other areas developing the core of how the internet works. that isn't even considering the side projects like google glass or self-driving cars.
also street view.
google has tried many things in many different areas, and sometimes they have failed fairly spectacularly. there have also been big successes that you'll probably never read about. they aren't altruistic by any means, but on the other hand they really are nowhere near as evil as comcast. or autodesk.
big, google, and the other guy who i'm not familiar with, are all pretty creative and innovative groups. while the current proposal seems a bit off for my tastes, i'm excited to see what this group can come up with, and if it can be executed.
Thank you curtkram for being a voice of reason.
where is that link with that guy suing Google over his building system?
this is another interesting question.
if they can build anything remotely resembling what they're proposing here, there's going to have to be new technologies developed.
you can't make a sun shade umbrella like that on a 1,000sf facade due to the cost issues, but if this project is really big, they might actually be able to bring the cost down to a reasonable level due to the scale, and perhaps production efficiencies.
will that become available to the public? they don't charge for searches, they don't charge for maps, they didn't charge for sketchup back when they owned it. it's possible they'll open the new technology to the public.
i wonder who will manufacture this complex. maybe someone in china, but again the scale might make it reasonable to build manufacturing closer to their site. where would i buy google sunshades? would the sunshade manufacturer be a subsidiary of google, or a google spin-off owned by one of the google execs or management, or will it be an entirely separate private entity (with someone that has experience in manufacturing such things)?
i just hope the project doesn't die.
First I assumed these would be built with ETFE or something. Anyone? Not sure that would be any better but glass seems to hard? For what is proposed
Also, if they are trying to reverse parking lots and add greenways and make a bit more of a live work of "campus" perhaps, does that "public" infrastructure function more like a POPs than anything else? Is it just for employees?
Finally, is the light-weight "movable" structure how they plan to account for long term Threat of Sea-Level Rise?
Haven't listened to the podcast on this yet (so if it was addressed I apologize)......this video is a seriously half-ass presentation. Anyone who went to architecture school should be able to read that. It's clear here who like BIG and Google just because they are BIG and Google, usually the same group that is on the other spectrum of dealing with Charleston, SC........................by the way does it bother anyone that Google/patents allows you to search the US patent database, which you could search via the Government website (I have) long before Google integrated it?-----' Is this so that they can run ads about a product as you look for a similar patent? ------------- What's next, voting by Internet on healthcare issues and the biggest bidder can run an ad as you decide on your vote?--------------- Now think about Google ' s ability to collect information and monitor trends of past social cognitive action in relation to this poorly half ass ad campaign. Does Google know that most of us are just too stupid to read through this half assed whimsical full of fluff YouTube video? I bet they do KNOW.
In other news, GOOGLE announced that they are changing their search algorithm to rank search results based on accuracy instead of links.
Who determines the accuracy?
the algorithm does miles. it says that right at the top.
this question was actually asked in the comments and someone responded 'liberals.' i laughed.
The algorithm is not a 'who'.
Curtkram are you in your twenties? You and a few others on this site have an interesting perspective on this stuff and I an wondering if it's an age thing.....you do know how algorithms are developed,deployed, and made right? Unless you were being a smart ass when you responded to Miles above, which is highly probable given the manner in which Miles formulates his linguistic assemblies in a somewhat jabbing syntax (the Miles algorithm)....if you are say 35 and Older I would forgive you for your naive statement, but if you are in your twenties and really believe and mean the statement you made above - you need to be slapped silly.
curt is waaay too smart to be in his twenties.
He's probably a teenager.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.