The recently opened Apple store in Chicago has been praised by one of the city’s papers as an “elegantly understated… boon to the city’s riverfront,” but perhaps that perception will change after the discovery of a significant design flaw.The structure’s ultra-thin carbon fiber roof was fashioned in the shape of a MacBook Pro but does not have any gutters to catch water, so melting snow has begun to turn into icicles and sliding snow that can harm pedestrians below. — Fortune
Outside Apple's recent Chicago store signs read: "CAUTION Watch For Falling Snow and Ice" as noted by blogger Matt Maldre. The new design by Foster and Partners was intended as a “town square” experience for the community, and to serve as a flagship design for all future Apple stores. Unfortunately, this design has a flaw in it's carbon roof warding off Chicago shoppers to steer clear of the building.
The roof's lack of gutters creates a potential hazard as melting snow may fall directly on pedestrians. Matt Maldre comments in his blog, “Maybe next time Apple will consider the actual community where their stores are built [...] Y’know, basic things like in Chicago, the weather gets cold. It snows. The snow falls off the roof. Don’t design a sloping roof where the snow can’t be caught or guttered off somewhere.”
I guess we will learn how good a company Apple is, and how great foster is, by how the problem is solved. Its easy to engage in schadenfreude, and say that apple and their architect are stupid. We know they are not. They tried something different, it didn't work. Now they will fix it, hopefully. Would be disappointing if they just started suing each other.
IT companies deal with this kind of thing all the time. Beta versions are a thing. Architecture is not considered this way usually, but maybe we should...
The Desire to Innovate should not come as a result of ignoring a century of knowledge. The overhangs and canopies in Chicago deal with ice with ice and snow guards (little flanges that stick up and hold the snow and ice in place), parapets, or sloping the canopy away from the entry/canopy. There is no need to deviate from this or to innovate a new roof line just because we can, if this new building poses a treat to people then it is bad design. There are lots of opportunities to design something innovative with snow and ice control as a working feature.
Over and OUT
Peter N
All the arguments for why this is bone-headed are true enough. It is a surprising lapse from Norman Foster, who is not a fool. Of course this is in hindsight a dumb mistake and perhaps could have been avoided (so feel free to laugh it up), but the thing is they were trying to do something beyond the safe middle ground. That is not what Foster is about. Or most anyone in the history books. Great architecture does not come from copying the past, but from extending it.
It is beyond ironic to hear that history is finished (as if it
stopped ages ago) from people who give it such weight. Why should we not
have the opportunity to learn from
our own mistakes? Foster is part of history. We all are. In this case
his office put together a design that modifies an eave and it looks like
it might work but doesn't. So what? I guess they will solve it since it
is not an insanely difficult problem. If we look at the achievement of
the building
in itself I think there is more to talk about than this quibble over a
technical issue with the gutter. It certainly doesn't have enough
importance that it should stand for the quality of the building
altogether as many might wish.There are so many serious things we could discuss about why this building is a failure or success, but this is not it.
My hope is that his office and Apple will not act the way most of the people on this thread have. It does not sound like anyone here is interested in learning from the admittedly stupid mistake. but lets see if Ives starts shouting out that he always knew Foster was a moron. I mean that would be funny, but it wouldn't do much for the profession, which is already in a shit place.
A final thought, about beta architecture and history. All architecture is a beta version of something more refined. It's built into our business.There are gradations of experimentation sure, but it is worth remembering that experimentation itself is not limited to out time. Historically great architects always actively tried things they knew might fail. For the conservatives out there I guess most of
you know that Monticello was Jefferson's experimental work in progress,
that he fucked up a lot of details in the process but took those
mistakes as opportunities to learn. Basically the same spirit as Gehry's
own house, but neo-classical. So you know, lets not lean too heavily on the past for evidence against the present.
Anyway, this is not an approach to design
that we should shit on, but that we should embrace for what it is.
According to this article from the Chicago Tribune last Friday, Apple has said that this problem was due to a software malfunction.
"The roof has a warming system that's built into it. It needed some fine-tuning and it got re-programmed today. It's hopefully a temporary problem."
The article also indicated that the store is designed to drain water through four internal support columns, not traditional gutters.
All 24 Comments
Steve Jobs would have never stood for this sh*t
Apple knows how it’s cutsomers like to experience interfaces including hazardous stair and ice conditions. So I think a lot of the criticisms ... are utterly bizarre, because it wasn't made for you. And I know how we walk, and you don't.
D’you suppose the Longaberger Basket building was plagued by giant ants?
Donna wins the thread. Now all that remains is for Chris to render it into a scene from THEM! (1954).
The Longaberger building could actually be useful here ... the basket's handles were heated to prevent formation of ice!
Lord Foster, maybe it might get cold in Chicago.
I visited Chicago recently and there are indeed integral gutters, but eyeballing it from photos, they're at least 5-10 feet from the edge of the roof. I'm assuming that's in order to wedge the internal storm piping into one or more of their four vertical elements on the interior. Alas, the hunt for the perfect canopy edge continues!
I guess we will learn how good a company Apple is, and how great foster is, by how the problem is solved. Its easy to engage in schadenfreude, and say that apple and their architect are stupid. We know they are not. They tried something different, it didn't work. Now they will fix it, hopefully. Would be disappointing if they just started suing each other.
IT companies deal with this kind of thing all the time. Beta versions are a thing. Architecture is not considered this way usually, but maybe we should...
embarrassing yes. They knew about the problem and answered it incorrectly. But it was not out of laziness or ignorance, rather a risk for an effect they felt was worth taking. Architecture only changes and grows when there is failure, mistake, etc to learn from. For some it is not worth it, and I get that too. Still, there is value in making mistakes like this. My hope is that the attitude that made Apple into a force for change will be in play here.
Well-put commentary, Will. The whole "gotcha" mindset in the culture is getting pretty annoying. And as you rightly point out, the very concept of beta is that of a second chance to get a complicated thing right. Of course, the costs and seeming finality of an architectural project once it's "done" is at odds there.
I sorta agree- architectural that is a derivative form of branding is experimental. But some of the high-end retailers I'm familiar with are also aware of the risks and spend a lot of time mocking up the project- climate specific.
The glass windows of the Apple store have started to crack in the cold also.
When marketing rules product performance is irrelevent.
I never understood Apple's dystopian circular headquarters building in California or even the need to have everyone in one building. Going between buildings in CA is not exactly like trekking between structures in an Antarctic winter.
Its funny how everyone here is so quick to jump onto conclusions for something a bit different. I hear that this problem is pretty common in chicago actually, can anyone confirm?
Snow in Chicago is indeed a common problem.
The ice falling and killing people is a thing in Chicago. It is solved by having colonnades and canopies (sometimes seasonal temporary canopies) at ground level, or like the Sear Tower you enter under the plaza in an entry pavilion 50-100 feet from the towers edge, and most common is the interior HVAC system is cranked up when the outside air at each vertical zone is below freezing to heat the glass up and melt the snow and ice before it accumulates into massive sheets that slip off and fall to the ground. The fancy older buildings with all of their ornament also deal with ice by holding it in the crevices and shapes of the ornaments and by the nature of the building surface creating a condition that prevents large bits of ice and snow from falling. This is not common but it is a factor and most architects who work in Chicago do deal with this effectively. Next time higher a local architect and listen to their advice. https://www.citylab.com/environment/2012/02/chicagoans-vs-falling-icicles-history/1219/
"Constructing novelty architecture near to roads became one way of attracting motorists to a diner, coffee shop, or roadside attraction, so buildings were constructed in an unusual shape, especially the shape of the things sold there. "Mimic" architecture became a trend, and many roadside coffee shops were built in the shape of giant coffee pots; hot dog stands were built in the shape of giant hot dogs; and fruit stands were built in the shape of oranges or other fruit. Tail o' the Pup, mimics a hot dog-shaped hot dog stand; Brown Derby is a derby-shaped restaurant; Bondurant's Pharmacy is a mortar-and-pestle pharmacy; the Big Apple Restaurant, a 10.7 metres (35 ft) and the Big Duck are respectively a tall apple and a (now defunct) poultry store shaped like a duck" Wiki
The Desire to Innovate should not come as a result of ignoring a century of knowledge. The overhangs and canopies in Chicago deal with ice with ice and snow guards (little flanges that stick up and hold the snow and ice in place), parapets, or sloping the canopy away from the entry/canopy. There is no need to deviate from this or to innovate a new roof line just because we can, if this new building poses a treat to people then it is bad design. There are lots of opportunities to design something innovative with snow and ice control as a working feature.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Buildings shouldn't be 'beta' versions. Especially when turned out by 'accomplished' architects. Your responsibility is to anticipate and prevent problems, not create them. Snow ... WTF? Incompetent.
The software metaphor is horrible, applying it to the real world is nonsensical. If your car was as unreliable and inconsistent as your computer you would get a bicycle.
What's really happened here is that people have been conditioned to accept dysfunctional crap and a constant stream of patches and partial "fixes" as the norm. With the computerization of cars the previous metaphor is obsolete. As are mechanics, who don't fix anything - they just replace what the computer tells them to.
They could have built a steeply pitched metal gable roof and had the snow slide off the eaves into a rock garden or line of evergreen trees underneath the eaves - a distance of what, ten or twelve feet? Put the entrances to the building in the gable ends. It would still look modern. They could pretend each roof section was an Apple notebook if they really wanted to.
Since money / environment are clearly not considerations, use radiant heat to clear both the roof and the surrounding sidewalks. Then you can have your stupid iPad building. New "Ultra-thin"!
To be more environmentally conscious maybe they could find a way to capture body heat from the slave labor in China that makes iPhones ... Apple is soooo innovative.
The roof is heated. They're blaming a malfunction of the heating system for the snow/ice accumulation.
The problem with active vs passive systems. What about the stairs and sidewalk - is that heated, too?
All the arguments for why this is bone-headed are true enough. It is a surprising lapse from Norman Foster, who is not a fool. Of course this is in hindsight a dumb mistake and perhaps could have been avoided (so feel free to laugh it up), but the thing is they were trying to do something beyond the safe middle ground. That is not what Foster is about. Or most anyone in the history books. Great architecture does not come from copying the past, but from extending it.
It is beyond ironic to hear that history is finished (as if it stopped ages ago) from people who give it such weight. Why should we not have the opportunity to learn from our own mistakes? Foster is part of history. We all are. In this case his office put together a design that modifies an eave and it looks like it might work but doesn't. So what? I guess they will solve it since it is not an insanely difficult problem. If we look at the achievement of the building in itself I think there is more to talk about than this quibble over a technical issue with the gutter. It certainly doesn't have enough importance that it should stand for the quality of the building altogether as many might wish.There are so many serious things we could discuss about why this building is a failure or success, but this is not it.
My hope is that his office and Apple will not act the way most of the people on this thread have. It does not sound like anyone here is interested in learning from the admittedly stupid mistake. but lets see if Ives starts shouting out that he always knew Foster was a moron. I mean that would be funny, but it wouldn't do much for the profession, which is already in a shit place.
A final thought, about beta architecture and history. All architecture is a beta version of something more refined. It's built into our business.There are gradations of experimentation sure, but it is worth remembering that experimentation itself is not limited to out time. Historically great architects always actively tried things they knew might fail. For the conservatives out there I guess most of you know that Monticello was Jefferson's experimental work in progress, that he fucked up a lot of details in the process but took those mistakes as opportunities to learn. Basically the same spirit as Gehry's own house, but neo-classical. So you know, lets not lean too heavily on the past for evidence against the present.
Anyway, this is not an approach to design that we should shit on, but that we should embrace for what it is.
Well said, Will. It is sad to see architects take a dump on fellow architects for something that, as you said, is not an insanely difficult problem. I would like for someone here to actually offer some solutions than just keep bagging on someone trying to make a difference.
"For the conservatives out there I guess most of you know that Monticello was Jefferson's experimental work in progress, that he fucked up a lot of details in the process but took those mistakes as opportunities to learn. "
What does this have to do with politics? If by conservative, you mean repeating the past, modernists are just as guilty. As for Jefferson, he saw the Maison Carre and had it transferred to Richmond because he thought it was beautiful and would adequately represent the ideals he sought to emulate here. Not sure that tinkering with cool gadgets is the same as a building's aesthetic.
If I meant politics I would have said republican, liberal or the more recent orange-man party. As for the content of the comment, it is intended as an inoculation against this weird attack against Foster that says he has to deal with this kind of problem because of his sins against history.
Experimentation isn't putting a flat-roof building in a snowy climate. There is another name for that.
And it's not "innovative". Neither are gutters.
Solutions? Aside from radiant heat (which would still require a system for catching rain and snow melt), the roof could have been pitched toward a landscape element that functioned as a French drain. Plenty of aesthetic justifications for this such echoing the slope of the site, referencing a partially open laptop, etc. (not to mention 3' average annual snowfall).
This project is a great demonstration of arrogance and gross stupidity on multiple levels. I for one would enjoy seeing this wrangled over by lawyers and insurance companies. Because after all it is only about one thing: money. Anything done solely for money is guaranteed to be shit.
I have a sneaking suspicion the idea for the building came from the Apple product designers who told Foster what to do. Foster, in turn, disregarded a whole body of work on how to design for cold climates which includes a vast amount of experience with roof designs. Foster was also involved with the hollowed-out Frisbee headquarters building that also bears the fingerprints of Apple designers.
Why do we always stop short of true innovation? The real question is, why does apple even need a brick and mortar shop to begin with? Stylized minimalism, rather than Utilizing a 100% virtual store or some type of decentralized kiosk...The new revolution in Architecture will be knowing when NOT to build. The ability to solve an architectural problem without a building. True minimalism.
Who wants to be an anti architect with me? Lol
I mean, in a time where the contents of a library can fit in your pocket, maybe buildings aren't always the answer.
Probably because the apple stores make a serious amount of money. Isnt the rumor that apple stores make more per square meter than any retail store in the world?
Not sure, but regardless it's the product that's making them money. The consumer would go through whatever avenue to get that product. I doubt any customer would be turned away if they had to purchase through a kiosk, online store, or existing retailer like Best Buy. My point is, it seems the function of the store as a market for goods is secondary to its function as a form of physical advertising. A monument of sorts. That said, the need for its form to communicate some idea/ideal supersedes it's function. In a future where many typologies become functionally obsolete, architecture will become increasingly about branding and corporate identity. "Style" will be influenced more by the corporate client and less by the ebbs and flows of the discipline.
true enough. I went to a lecture by Toyo Ito a few years ago at my uni where he was complaining about his role being reduced to exterior designer. This was about the mikimoto building and the Tod's building in Omotesando, which frankly are both pretty great buildings even if he questions his role. I did not feel so sorry for him. Architects always have been the translators of power, whether a church or villa. Michelangelo and Brunneleschi are only remembered as brand building superstars for the church... Not sure where I am going with this except that the more things change the more they stay the same.
Very true.
According to this article from the Chicago Tribune last Friday, Apple has said that this problem was due to a software malfunction.
"The roof has a warming system that's built into it. It needed some fine-tuning and it got re-programmed today. It's hopefully a temporary problem."
The article also indicated that the store is designed to drain water through four internal support columns, not traditional gutters.
now that makes a lot more sense than most of the bullshit above.
"because the apple stores make a serious amount of money"
And there you have it, the only measure that counts.
A lot of people are living with their kids in cars and vans because they can't afford shelter and these people can afford to heat their roof (if the system works)? Just so the roof can look like a large ipad?
Wonder if the flammability issue of a carbon-fiber roof got the same expert attention as the roof design?
I am a little surprised at how people are blaming the lack of gutters. How many of us have not seen huge icicles hanging off of gutters. Gutters or lack thereof are not the problem. There is another solution, but adding gutters isn't it.
I went to School in a snowy region, the dorms had pitched roofs, with snow guards, and gutters guess what.... there were still ice slides, and icicles hanging off the eaves.
There is much less snow where I currently practice, but it is snowing today.
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.