 |
|
|
|||||
At its annual Google I/O developer conference in Mountain View next week, Google will try to rally developers around one of its next big bets: Android XR. Later this year, Samsung is set to release the first VR headset powered by the spatial computing operating system, and Google is aiming to attract as many developers as possible to build apps for the device. Thats no small task for a company whose history with AR and VR has been marked by inconsistency. Google was among the first to experiment with AR glasses, gave millions their first taste of VR through low-cost mobile viewers, and even launched a stand-alone immersive VR headset before Metaonly to abandon each project in rapid succession, leaving partners frustrated. Google has burnt a lot of bridges in the XR community, cautions an industry insider who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal. Still, theres a sense of cautious optimism among AR and VR developers that this time might be different. One reason: the competitive landscape has changed. With Apple and Meta investing tens of billions into immersive technology, the pressure is on. Android XR also aligns with Googles current strengths, particularly in AI and in its push to expand Androids reach. A Google spokesperson declined to comment for this story. Daydreams and Glassholes Googles first foray into AR/VR remains one of the industrys most infamous missteps. Unveiled in 2012, Google Glass paired a camera with a tiny display and was touted as a peek into a post-smartphone world. Instead, it became a cautionary tale. Critics were unnerved by the devices always-on camera, dubbing users glassholes. A $1,500 price tag and limited usefulness sealed its fate, and Google soon dropped its consumer ambitions for Glass. Despite that bruising experience, the company didnt fully retreat from the space. In 2014, Google introduced Cardboard, a DIY viewer that turned smartphones into rudimentary VR devices. That effort later evolved into Daydream, a more comfortable headset with a controller, supporting immersive videos and simple games. Cardboard and Daydream did reach millions of users, but their reliance on smartphones made them impractical for sustained use. We were looking for that spark of adoption, says a former Google employee who worked on Daydream. (Former employees were also granted anonymity by Fast Company out of fear of reprisal.) That spark never came. It never became a toothbrush use case, the employee adds, referencing the goal of making the device something people use daily, like brushing their teeth. Over time, Google did achieve that with many of its products: Billions now use Gmail, Chrome, and Maps every day. But that success may have distorted expectations for VR. You tend to forget how hard it is to get billions of users, says a second former Google employee involved in VR. Expecting too much too soon may have doomed these projects. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy, the first former employee says. A Long List of Cancelled Projects Google eventually moved beyond smartphone-based VR with a stand-alone headset built in partnership with Lenovo in 2018. Running Daydream, the device had potential to compete with Metas Quest, but Google scrapped it a year later. When it didnt become a huge success overnight, they pivoted, says the industry insider. Daydream joined a growing list of abandoned Google AR/VR efforts: the immersive storytelling series Spotlight Stories, the cloud-based video platform Jump and its professional camera line, the 3D modeling tool Blocks, the asset platform Poly, and several consumer VR cameras created with hardware partners. Some of these projects were open-sourced upon cancellation. The popular VR painting app Tilt Brush, for example, lives on as a community-driven project on Metas Quest. Others survived the internal shakeups: Owlchemy Labs, acquired by Google in 2017, still thrives. Its whimsical title Job Simulator remains one of the best-selling games on Quest. Many of Googles early AR/VR projects had real potentialif only the company had stayed the course. Google had all these weird, cool, fun projects and acquisitions that they made very early, but they just didn’t follow through with them, says the industry insider. A Lack of Conviction Beyond high expectations, insiders point to a deeper issue: Googles hesitation to publicly commit to AR and VR. Google was not willing to put a shoe on the ground the same way Meta has, says the first former employee. The difference was that Mark [Zuckerberg] was out there, publicly saying: Im staking my future on this, agrees the second. I never felt that we had that type of conviction from [Google CEO] Sundar [Pichai]. Zuckerbergs enthusiasm for VR and the metaverse has been widely mocked, but Metas persistence has paid off. The company has sold tens of millions of Quest headsets, and its Ray-Ban smart glasses have found surprising success. Apples Vision Pro and its reported investments in smart glasses further validate the space. Now Google is returning with big ambitions of its own. Having turned Android into the worlds most widely used mobile OS, the company wants to replicate that success with Android XR. Unlike Apple and Meta, Google plans to build this future through partnershipsstarting with Samsungrather than relying on in-house hardware. Theres precedent for this kind of turnaround. After an underwhelming start, Googles Android TV platform eventually matured into one of the top smart TV ecosystems, with over 270 million monthly active users on Google TV-powered devices. Googles Assets: Android and AI To replicate that success in XR, Google will once again leverage its mobile ecosystem. Google will look to work with developers to port existing Android apps to Android XR, much like the way Apple brought iPadOS apps to the Vision Pro, says CCS Insight analyst Gebbie. This could give Google an advantage over Meta. Googles massive AI investments could also prove pivotal. The company has already demonstrated how AI can enhance AR glasses, and Gebbie believes AI will be key in simplifying interaction within spatial computing systems. With the tech in place, Googles future in XR hinges on one factor: commitment. This time around, Google must fully commit to Android XR if it is to seriously try and build an ecosystem, says Gebbie. If Google makes another false start, then its partners may look elsewhere. As long as Google has conviction, I would never bet against them, agrees the second former employee.
Category:
E-Commerce
Loneliness isnt just a well-being risk, it is an acute business risk. The effects of loneliness dont just permeate an individual’s personal life, it can negatively impact their professional life. When employees dont feel a sense of camaraderie or belonging at work, their performance suffers. According to research from Gartner, employees who are satisfied with camaraderie in their organization show a high enterprise contribution of 23%. But employees who are dissatisfied with the camaraderie in their organization show a high enterprise contribution of only 13%. Organizations have taken early steps to mitigate loneliness by targeting interactions within the workplace and beyond, like mandating employees to return to the office to boost collaboration and connection. But proximity alone isnt a cure for employee loneliness. It ignores the root causes of the issue. Moving forward, CHROs need to address loneliness in the workforce through two primary strategies: improving in-role connectedness to boost productivity and supporting out-of-work connectedness to meet employee well-being needs. Improving in-role connectedness to boost employee productivity Employees should have autonomy when it comes to building personal connections, as well as guidance from HR on how to make the most of their interactions. That requires CHROs to foster guided interactions that engender interpersonal cohesiveness and naturalize sharing behavior, which establishes a new, more human-centered set of collaboration norms. There are three simple actions CHROs can take to achieve this: 1. Empower employees to personalize connection-building CHROs should give employees ownership of building their connections with one another. Not only does this promote personalization of how they strengthen these relationships, it also encourages them to make connections according to their own needs or preferences. CHROs can help employees fortify these peer connections over time in partnership with communication leaders. In turn, they can grow employees connection with the organizations culture and community through socialization. 2. Encourage employees to be intentional about their collaboration needs Gartner analysis found that satisfaction with collaboration significantly impacts employee performance. Now, not all collaboration supports connectedness or productivity. Intentionality helps employees think carefully and understand which mode of collaboration best suits both the nature of their work and their individual preferences. Through guided collaboration and actively reshaping the needs and norms of how individuals interact, CHROs can equip teams to have intentionality and reciprocity when collaborating. Gartner found that organizations that practice guided collaboration achieve profit goals 10% more often than those that don’t. 3. Support affinity groups that connect employees and encourage breaks CHROs should foster connections between employees beyond work-related tasks. Affinity groups, akin to employee resource groups, connect employees based on common interests that align with the companys business model and values. Imagine a surfboard company offering time off for employees to surf together. These benefits can boost engagement and lead to a more motivated workforce. Support connection outside of work to boost well-being Employees who feel their employer supports their lives outside the office are more motivated to perform in the workplace. There are several ways CHROs can support employee connection outside of work: 1. Offer employees volunteer time off (VTO) VTO policies grant employees paid leave for volunteering activities. Some corporations allow staff to take a set number of hours each week, while others grant up to a week of leave. VTO initiatives can enhance employee engagement, build connections with local communities, and showcase corporate social responsibility. 2. Provide interpersonal, out-of-work connection perks Some progressive organizations offer enhanced support to help employees find and make meaningful personal connections outside of work. This includes things like offering stipends for bike passes to encourage well-being in connected social settings. These out-of-office perks also provide talent attraction and retention benefits. 3. Make it easier to take a break with global recharge days With many employees either not taking vacation days or working while on vacation, some organizations encourage employees to use their vacation days jointly to disconnect from work. If most, if not all, employees take vacation together, they can all fully disconnect from work and recharge. Many factors have contributed to the epidemic of loneliness in the workplace, and these feelings of isolation have real business implications for organizations that dont address them. With CEOs hyper-focused on growth in 2025, and seeing employee productivity as key to achieving it, HR has an important role to play in removing any productivity barriers, including hidden ones like loneliness. By treating loneliness, and outside of the workplace, organizatios reap the benefits of a healthier, more productive, and engaged workforce.
Category:
E-Commerce
Brawny just went big on bulk. The Georgia-Pacific paper towel brand introduced a new logo set in a thicker font and breathed new life into its lumberjack mascot, the Brawny Manall as part of a shift to stand out on store shelves and launch a new product, three-ply paper towels. “We weren’t just evolving a visual identity,” Amanda Earley, Georgia-Pacific’s brand director for Brawny, tells Fast Company. “We were launching a new product, shifting our full lineup, and repositioning the brand in culture, all while protecting what made Brawny special in the first place.” Bringing all this to market at the same time was a challenge, Earley says, but necessary to achieve the company’s overall goals: to grow household penetration, drive category growth, and convert the brand’s entire portfolio from two-ply to three. From top: The previous iteration, and the new one [Images: Georgia-Pacific] A bolder Brawny logo The logo is one part of that. “We modernized the logo to make it bolder, more confident, and unmistakably Brawny,” Earley says. The typographic beef up was also a strategic decision to “signal product superiority at shelf, reinforce brand strength, and help us stand apart in a space that often feels like a sea of sameness,” she says. Companies like Amazon, OpenAI, and Walmart have all recently made their logos bigger and bolder, but for Brawny, doing so was an imperative because of its brand promise. A paper towel brand that calls itself the strongest can’t be set in a skinny font, especially after announcing plans to increase the ply of its products by 50%. So the company made a few changes to indicate its new weight class. Its logo uses flat, bold, black-and-white letterforms, removing the red shadowing of the previous version. It’s also now set on a firm horizontal instead of a slant. The logo type is sans serif, except for the letters B and A, which have serifs that extend like eaves on a rest stop or ranger station icon. A bulked-up Brawny Man Introduced in the 1970s, the Brawny Man has undergone multiple makeovers over the years and worn his facial hair in various waysthe brand even had Brawny women as part of a 2016 campaign. In this newest iteration, the Brawny Man appears on packaging in the form of an illustration of a handsome, hunky outdoorsy type suitable for casting on The Bachelorette wearing his signature red-and-black plaid shirt. He appears oversize in new commercials, like Brawny’s own Paul Bunyanand he’s eager to help clean up messes, whether they happen to be in the aftermath of a 40th birthday party or at a treehouse sleepover full of superstitious tween girls. [Image: Georgia-Pacific] Too often brand mascots “live frozen in time,” says Jaime Robinson, cofounder and chief creative officer at Joan Creative, which helped develop packaging and worked on the Brawny Mans refresh. “When you have such legendary brand IP like the Brawny Man, you want to approach it thoughtfully but bravely,” Robinson says. It was all about striking the right balance between familiarity and modernity, according to Holly Karlsson, creative director at Bulletproof, the agency that worked on Brawny’s visual identity and packaging design. And by “retaining his rugged dependability while evolving his personality to feel more authentic, warm, and human,” she says, Bulletproof hoped to do just that. The new Brawny Man is a gentle giant with a bold logo to match.
Category:
E-Commerce
SpaceX owns 98% of global rocket launches, a monopoly with virtually no competition. Only China is competing with Elon Musk at this point in number of launches and, while the country is getting closer to mass-producing reusable rockets, it appears far from making that happen. The world needs to scramble. We cant let a single company dominate the future of humanityand much less one that is owned by Musk. If you copy SpaceX, itll take you 10 years to get where they are today, Lin Kayser, cofounder of Dubai-based engineering AI firm Leap 71, tells me in a video interview. But in 10 years, SpaceX wont be where they are today. The game will be over. Startups and nations need to catch up to Musk, but that means solving a brutal equation: designing engines with comparable thrust (measured in kilonewtons, or kN) and efficiency, but without the decade-long development cycles. And to beat SpaceX, you also need to be able to mass-produce the rockets. [Photo: Leap 71] This is now more important than ever because the stakes are even higher than just five years ago. Satellite constellations like Starlink, which may soon enable direct-to-phone internet, threaten to sideline telecom operators and centralize control of earths critical communication infrastructure on top of controlling the space economy. Every region needs sovereign launch capability, Kayser contends. Otherwise, youll pay 10 times what SpaceX pays to access spaceif they let you. His company may have a solution to fix that conundrum. Leap 71 developed artificial intelligence called Noyron that, so far, has successfully designed two rocket engines. Kayser believes that his company, legacy rocket makers, and startups will be able to leverage this synthetic rocket engineer to create a cheaper match to the SpaceX Raptorand beat Musk at his own game. The 10-foot-high Raptorwhich powers the Starshipis arguably the most advanced Western rocket engine in production. Its latest iteration produces 280 tonnes of thrust at sea level, surpassing competing engines like Blue Origins BE-4. It uses methalox, an efficient fuel that can be manufactured in places like Mars, which makes it key for deep-space exploration. But the Raptors importance lies in the fact that it is the first operational full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) engine in history. This means that it optimizes efficiency and thrust while minimizing thermal stress, so you can reuse it many times, the key for cheap, sustainable space exploration. Only two other FFSC engines have been tested, but they’ve never flown. Leap 71 now wants to achieve the same spaces but better, with fewer 3D-printed pieces, which will make it less expensive than Musk’s engine. [Photo: Leap 71] Computational blueprint Leap 71 describes its Noyron computational model as an engineer brain in a box. Unlike generative AI tools that require human oversight because they are just guessing what could work, Noyron encodes physics, material science, and manufacturing rules to autonomously design rocket engines. It generates not just shapes but also functional hardware ready for 3D printing. Traditional parametric CAD is geometry-driven. Ours is physics-driven, Kayser explains. Calling it parametric CAD would be like saying ChatGPT is autocomplete. The systems first breakthrough came in 2024 with a 5 kN rocket engine. The compact, high-efficiency rocket was fully designed by AI and 3D printed in one go as a single-piece copper engine with intricate internal cooling channels. During trials in an old World War II bunker in the U.K., the engine fired flawlessly, validating Noyrons ability to predict thermal stresses and fluid dynamics. Then, in January 2025, Leap 71 really pushed the envelope by designing one of the most challenging and elusive rocket engines in the aerospace industry: a cryogenic aerospike thruster, an engine capable of working at every altitude to eliminate the need for multiple rocket stages, minimizing elements and costs in the process. View this post on Instagram A post shared by LEAP 71 (@leap.71) Now the company wants to scale up this approach to engines 400 times larger. The new road map includes two reference designs: the 200 kN XRA-2E5 aerospike and the 2,000 kN XRB-2E6 bell-nozzle engine, equivalent to SpaceXs Raptor. The first, he says, is slated for testing within 18 months of April 2025 (placing it around late 2026). The second is targeted for readiness by 2029. From left: A rocket injector head designed by Leap 71 in 2024; the new, much larger injector head designed for a 2 meganewton engine [Photo: Leap 71] For rocket engine developmentwith design and testing cycles measured in decadesthis is incredibly ambitious. But the timeline is achievable because of how Noyron works, Kayser says. Instead of manually iterating prototypes, Noyron treats all engines as variations of a unified DNA. And instead of having to be programmed, its edge lies in its ability to absorb decades of engineering knowledgeeven from obscure sources. For its new model, Leap 71 has not only incorporated learnings from its past tests (like data on cooling efficiency and material strain), but also vast amounts of new information, including digitized Soviet-era rocket manuals. We plug these into Noyron to refine our thermal models, Kayser says. The AI also learns from every test, creating a feedback loop that collapses design cycles and speeds up the development process. Noyron is not generative AI, but a computational model capable of producing deterministic results that are consistent every time. They are accurate according to the actual physical world and data. It understands. It doesnt just guess. Input the same specs, and it generates identical designs (try that with ChatGPT, Gemini, Midjourney, or Sora). This is critical for aerospace reliability. Human engineers can see the rationale behind evey decision, Kayser says. Its not a black box. The challenges While Noyron can design a rocket engine in minutes, proving it works in the physical world is the real test. The companys ambitions collide with a stark reality: Even the most advanced AI cannot shortcut the laws of physics and bureaucracy. Securing test facilities for large engines is another hurdle. While smaller subsystems (like the 28 kN turbopump it wants to test this year) fit on existing stands, the 2,000 kN engines sheer size demands specialized infrastructure. The critical path here is test-stand availability, says Kayser. Current options are scarce and scattered around the world. Shipping engines abroad triggers export controls and delaysa problem compounded by geopolitical tensions. Moving a small engine from Germany to the U.K. already takes two to three weeks, Kayser tells me. Thats why Leap 71 is in talks with governments in Dubai, Singapore, and New Zealand to co-locate manufacturing and testing. Omans planned spaceport and New Zealands remote Twhaki facility, with its vast sound-dampening landscapes, are leading candidates. You cant just put a loud rocket engine next to a city, Kayser says. [Photo: Leap 71] The other challengethe actual production of the enginehas only just become possible, with Chinas new 3D-printing behemoths capable of producing parts that are 6.56-by-6.56-by-3.60 feet. In fact, this is what led Kayser and his partner, Leap 71 cofounder Josefine Lissner, to believe that making a Raptor-class engine was even possible. Called the EP-M2050 (and manufactured by Eplus3D), this colossal 3D printer uses 36 lasers to turn metallic powders into all the parts needed for next-gen rocket engines, including the nozzles, which will be much taller than your average human. [Image: Eplus3D] The printers are so new that quality assurance is still a question mark. Surface roughness, inherent to layered metal printing, disrupts fluid dynamics in cooling channels. Rough walls increase friction, altering fuel flow and thermal stability. Post-printing, parts undergo rigorous cleaning to remove residual metal powder, a task that until now has been handled by German firm Solukon because any impurities could cause an explosion, Kayser says. Material uniformity is another gamble. While printers handle alloys like copper-chromium-zirconium, ensuring consistent strength in massive componentsespecially under the violent vibrations and thermal swings of a firing engineremains unproven at this scale. The turbopump, which forces fuel into the combustion chamber at extreme pressures, epitomizes this challenge. Leap 71s 28 kN test rig validates principles for larger designs, but scaling amplifies risks. Turbines spin at supersonic speeds, generating centrifugal forces that warp metal. Rapid temperature shiftslike the -297°F cryogenic oxygen flow meeting 5,430°F exhaustthreaten cracks. Sealing, material fatigue, and transient conditions during start-up and shutdown are critical, Kayser explains. These are not just design problemsthey demand practical testing. Thats why the most unnerving hurdle of rocket development with this method is blind testing. Leap 71s aerospike engine, printed as a single copper block with internal cooling channels, could not be inspected internally before firing. We had to test blind, Kayser says. During trials, imperfect oxygen flow led to higher-than-expected temperatures. Although it all worked, it forced an early shutdown. Instead of risking additional runs, we cut the engine in half to analyze it, Kayser adds. Each failure feeds back into Noyrons models, but iteration consumes time and capital. For now, Leap 71s strategy hinges on incremental validationtesting subsystems like injectors and turbopumps individuallywhile lobbying governments to fund dedicated test facilities. The road ahead While these are big challenges, they are not insurmountable. The space industry knows it and, according to Kayser, wants a piece of the action. Everyone is looking for a way to leapfrog several years and catch up toor surpassMusk. Right now, Leap 71 collaborates with about 15 rocket startups. Kayser cant disclose their names under confidentiality agreements except for the Exploration Co., which is developing a European Moon lander. These partners lack SpaceXs vertical integration but want tailored engines without decade-long R&D. The engine is the most expensive and complicated part, Kayser emphasizes. Everyone else just buys them. But theres no supply. L3Harriswhich now owns the legendary rocket engine maker Aerojet Rocketdyne, makers of the Apollo engineswants to sell them, but it doesnt have anything comparable to the Raptor. Blue Origin makes and sells engines for the United Launch Alliance (ULA), but nobody else. The Russian NPO Energomash once dominated the global rocket engine market, supplying the RD-180 that powered ULA’s Atlas V rocket for decades. But RD-180s are now considered relicsand are under sanctions because of the Ukraine war, anyway. [Current design processes] are actually a problem for many of the micro launcher companies right now, Kayser says. So they have relatively small engines. And if they now want to play in the higher leagues, they basically have to embark on a completely new project, create a completely new rocket. The main differentiation between sizes is the engine, because the rest of the rocket is scalable. It’s harder to scale up the engine because it has completely different specifications and requirements. By using Noyron, Kayser says customers will be able t fine-tune to their own needs and input thrust, fuel type, and size to receive bespoke engine designs for every need. A startup might tweak an aerospike for methane fuel, while another firm could optimize for cost. Some engines will be small and some could be Raptor-class. We will know if it all works in just a couple of years, so we wont have to wait long: Kayser tells me that he and Lissner expect the first hot firing of the 200 kN XRA-2E5 aerospike engine in October 2026. Full-scale testing of the large 2,000 kN Raptor-class engine is tentatively planned to begin in 2028, with qualification for flight readiness stretching into 2029. If Leap 71 can pull it off, it will be phenomenal for humanity. A new process for rocket development will challenge Elon Musk at his own game and democratize the means to reach orbit for every country on the planet. Plus, if it happens, the dream of having Tony Starks J.A.R.V.I.S.-like AI to aid humans to build the future will be real. Kayser certainly believes in it: Were building a world where anyone can engineer complex machines.
Category:
E-Commerce
Like other famous structures of similar dimensions, the 48-story Transamerica Pyramid, a revolutionary 70s modernist skyscraper and San Francisco icon, has a bit of history buried beneath its ground floor. [Photo: Nils Huenerfuerst/Unsplash] A recently unearthed time capsule, buried in 1974 and discovered during a recent round of renovations, offers a picture of San Francisco’s past. The site of the structurethen a parking lotwas initially part of the original shoreline of the city that reeked of historical significance, from the citys growth as a shipping and banking capital. The capsule even contains a recipe for Pisco Punch, a cocktail that was invented at the nearby Bank Exchange Saloon, site of the citys original stock exchange. [Photo: courtesy SHVO] Part of an exhibit in the building lobby opening May 18, the time capsules contents are timeless: pictures of the buildings steel frame beginning to stretch skyward, or vintage news clippings and images of the city after its last 60s flowering. But within the cylindrical steel capsule, which looks a bit like a large propane tank, theres also a narrative about building in America, and how thats radically changed in the last 50 years. [Photo: courtesy SHVO] The battle over the permitting and construction of the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco from 1969 to 1972 offers a flashback to a different time in development, real estate, and construction. The tower was proposed and built in just three years, a sprint compared to the time it takes today to build a signature part of a city skyline. Construction alone for the One World Trade in New York City took eight years; the Comcast Tech Center in Philadelphia, which had issues with cracks in some of the steel frame, took five years; and the St. Regis in Chicago took four years. An analysis of high-rise buildings by Construction Physics found building speeds decreased significantly over the past century, in many cases extending the time it takes to finish by roughly 50%. [Photo: courtesy SHVO] Buildings are more complex and require more permitting today, including complicated environmental review processes. This time-consuming process of development has led to backlash against what opponents call stifling building regulations. It has also led to more engagement from architects around code reform issues including elevator rules and exit stairs, and the formation of the abundance agenda, a center-left push by pundits like Ezra Klein to get the nation building fast again. The pace of the approval and the construction here is unbelievable, says developer Michael Shvo, who paid $650 million to acquire the Transamerica Pyramid in 2020, at the depths of the COVID office freeze.. The Mayor was very determined to get this thing approved, and Transamerica was very determined to get a building built, and with all the controversy, once they got the green light, they ran as fast as possible. They built it in two years, we couldnt do that today. [Photo: courtesy SHVO] A more humane debate Transaerica was then a massive business conglomerate with interests in banking, financial services, and insurance. According to former public relations staffer John Krizek, who worked for Transamerica during the pyramids construction and ultimately created the time capsule, the back-and-forth between protestors and developers at the time was more humane, more respectable, and more amusing. The conversation around the Transamerica Pyramid was, at the time, a larger debate about images, architecture, and aesthetics. The tower was not just a unique shape, but would tower above the skyline. It was to be the citys tallest building, and wouldnt be surpassed until 2018s Salesforce Tower. [Photo: courtesy SHVO] Artists and community members protested the building for aesthetic reasons, and general distrust of large corporations. Posters passed around the city at the time proclaimed San Francisco Gets the Shaft or Artists Against the Icicle. The citys then planning director called the pyramid, designed by architect William Pereira, inhumane. [Photo: courtesy SHVO] During early street protests in front of the companys office, Transamerica execs sent secretaries to bring ice tea to the protestors lining up outside. During another protest, Krizek and his colleagues printed up fake fortune cookies at a nearby Chinatown bakery, frantically stuffing messages like TransamericaNot a square outfit or People who protest pyramid seek Che-ops publicity. Krizek recalled that the company was determined to break ground in December 1969. The building plan was announced in January of that year, and there was a tax break worth approximately $750,000 expiring at the end of December. Since Krizek and his coworkers knew that as soon as the company was given approval to build, there would be an appeal, they planned to move fast and break ground before paperwork was filed. To head off any challenges, they staged a tractor and truck near the site and sent someone to pick up the approval during the midday lunch break; they were able to get a time-stamped photo of someone digging at site while those opposing the project saw their appeal delayed as staffer enjoyed their lunch. The emotions around this building, Ive never seen this for any other building in the world, says Shvo. The debates today are more practical; this structure will block my view or cast a shadow. You cant say that about this building, it was a pyramid designed to let the light down to the street level. It didnt block views, the only thing people could complain about was this idea of the Manhattanization of San Francisco. Originally, Pereiras design was meant for a new building for ABC in New York City. The network passed on the project, deeming the design too futuristic, and went with another architects vision. Today, the Transamerica Pyramid stands as an icon in San Francisco, with 80% of the space leased in a challenging office market. The building ABC picked instead? Its since been demolished.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] next »