[PatNY]

Originally Posted by jjallenupthehill

An architectural masterpiece. It's not internationally accepted as such.

Which one are you referring to? I had called two buildings architectural masterpieces.

I wouldn't necessarily call the second design 'derivative'. It could be claimed to be inspired by it, but derivative I think is stretching it a bit ...

The word derivative implies that the new work arises explicitly as a result of the original, without adding to it.

This isn't really true. Of course if you wanted to be picky about the term 'derivative' I guess probably over 90% of all architecture could be called derivative. This is of course different to being a blatant rip off.

Regarding the word derivative, I disagree with your interpretation of it. One of the definitions for it is: Copied or adapted from others. Adapted often implies adding to something.

All works inspired by other works are to some degree derivative. So, no need to play semantic games. It just derails the discussion.

In this case, the Apple store is very derivative which equals a rip off.

To start with, the Apple design is fundamentally about a simple, minimal glass cube that kind of serves as a big lobby. The original work uses a glass box which is an exhibition space and just one part of a larger design.

That is incorrect. The glass cube of the Apple store serves as the main selling space. And it can even be readily considered exhibition space too, as it is where all their current models -- from iphones and tablets to ipods and PCs and laptops -- are all laid out just as if on exhibition! Moreover, just as the exhibition space in the Rose center, that selling space is just one part of a larger design.

Architecture which is based on simple volumes is really common, and this kind of monumental architecture started with the pyramids and was revived by Claude Nicolas Ledoux and Étienne-Louis Boullée. It so happens that the medium of expression is glass.

Of course architecture based just on simple shapes is common. But it is precisely the use of huge swaths of clear glass for constructing almost the entire geometric shape that makes the Rose center unique/unusual. Not just having a spare geometric shape.

The reason for the curved roof is functional. You need to get the water off the roof so that you have less chance of snow settling on it. The ideal would be a flat roof, but it's not practical, so you try to get away with the minimum degree of curvature or slope possible so that you don't ruin the design principle of your 'cube'.

From the perspective of the ordinary observer, I doubt the curved roof is very relevant in terms of the overall impact of the structure. Most probably see just a clear glass box/rectangular -- just like with the Rose Center.

The Apple store also doesn't rip off the Rose Center, because that would also involve the size of the panes, proportions, means of structural support and volume elements. Apple have used a design which is similar to a single part of another (the Rose Center is elevated on a massive masonry base which projects past the cube, has a roof which is solid, not glass, and it has a solid closed volume at one edge) and refined and improved it.

Structural support and base elements are mostly hidden and/or inconsequential in terms of the impression a building has on observers. So too are the size of the panes of glass. People don't visit either of these structures and really remember what the base or structural support looked like (if they are even out in the open). The main elements of the clear walls and squarish geometric shape are still all very similar in the two structures. The takeaway impression people have of both is strikingly similar.

As for a "solid closed volume at one edge" not sure how that makes the exterior of the Rose Center any less similar to the exterior of the Apple store. To the contrary, the closed space at one edge is very similar in feel to the closed wall at the rear of the Apple store.

The Apple store has been stripped to the point of ultimate minimalism, with an almost invisible support structure which is constructed of the same material as the cladding. On the Rose Center, the support structure is an overt part of the visual design.

Again, we're talking mostly about the exterior of each building and the overall impression it makes on ordinary observers. Not how each building is furnished inside or how it is supported. Why would you think I included interiors as part of the comparison? One is a retail outlet and one is essentially a museum.

Even if you take the view that the original was an explicit precedent (which is commonplace) it doesn't substantially copy the original, it only uses a part of the design, which it refines and adapts to the new context and function.

The most predominant features of the Rose Center are the entirely glass walls and squarish geometric shape. The most predominant features of the Apple store are the entirely glass walls and squarish geometric shape. You can keep trying to spin it all you want, but one building is highly derivative of the other.

So - in terms of 'rip off' pertaining to a blatant copy, it's clearly not so. Even the glazed section isn't a rip off. Most obviously the new building has a transparent roof. Also the function is different.

"Rip off" means imitative. The Apple store is certainly imitative of the Rose Center. Just because the internal function of a building is different, doesn't make the exterior any less of a rip off.

Would you consider Pei's Louvre pyramid a rip-off of the orginal, but updated and translated in a modern material?

To some extent yes, but since the huge panels of clear glass are a primary essential architectural feature of the Louvre entrance, then it is very different and unique from the originals at the same time.

If we go back to the similarity of phone copying, the Galaxy didn't evidently add anything (apart from the logos, which aren't relevant) or take anything away from the original design, it copied it in its entirety, and copied most of the details in their complete form for precisely the same use as a direct competitor. The only really evident difference externally is the square button instead of a round one.

Now that is a rip-off

I haven't really looked at the Galaxy in particular to see how it matches up with the iPhone. So, for the purposes of this particular discussion, I'll take your word that it is a rip-off. Just like Apple's UWS store is a rip-off of the Rose Center. And, just like the original iPhone was a rip-off to some degree of prior technologies, including the Palm OS. So, the two companies have a lot in common. They are both talented rip-off artists!

--Pat