Federation Square and the Hostile Corporate Takeover.

Proposed view of the new floating iPad from approximately Eureka Tower.

The Design

The most concerning thing about the new design is the way in which it uses the architecture as a giant billboard for Apple. The form is essentially a floating iPad, which turns the building into what architectural theorists Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi might call a duck. A ‘duck’ is essentially an oversized building form that literally describes the purpose of that building. (You can take a look at a great post from 99% Invisible on the difference between ducks and decorated sheds here)

So just like ‘Pie in the Sky’ at the showgrounds, Apple will be selling their wares out of a giant replica of one of their products. This giant billboard is not only visible from the square and the arts precinct due to removal of some existing trees, but also from elevated viewpoints such as the Eureka Tower. It effectively puts a brand logo on the entire City of Melbourne, which will be evident in international broadcasts such as the Australian Open.

The design of the ‘Giant iPad’ whilst being more sedate than the alien forms of the ‘Pizza Hut Pagoda’ still seems to make no attempt at contributing to the ideas of Federation Square. There appears to be no ambition for the use of local materials or finishes in the expression of the building. We are left with just the space grey Giant iPad, hovering over a glass box.

View of the giant iPad design from the elevated walkway near the Yarra

Another aspect of concern for the design is the proposed height. Whilst the media and public essentially has only the ‘artist impressions’ to look at, the Herald Sun were confident in reporting that the proposed building height had been reduced further from the ‘Pizza Hut Pagoda’ version. This fits in nicely to the widely held but often incorrect notion that the smaller a building is the better. In the case of the Apple Store at Federation Square, this reduction in height from the Yarra Building causes a significant problem with the integration of the overhead catenary lighting system. This lighting system suspended by wires across the square has become an international benchmark for public lighting systems, as it requires no support poles that might otherwise visually clutter the space. The lighting system also serves as a neat reference to Melbourne’s iconic tram network. The integration of this lighting system with the new design was identified specifically in the design principles agreed to by the design steering committee.

With the cables currently connecting to the top of the Yarra building, it would seem that to integrate it into the new design, the wires would need to be substantially lowered, or for new supporting structures to be put in place above the proposed roof of the Apple Store. Either of these solutions would appear to be at odds with the stated design principle.

The Media

It is difficult to cut through the ‘spin’ from both the media and the politicians, as to how this process is being run. The communication from the politicians in particular is just not very clear. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, the redesign was due to the public outrage that the first proposal caused. Yet this was specifically refuted back in February by Professor Donald Bates who explained that the first design was merely a placeholder. If that is indeed the case, it raises many further questions. Why didn’t the politicians also explain that to the media at the time? Was this the plan when the first design was released in December 2017, or did it become the plan in February once it was clear that the public weren’t happy? If it were always a placeholder design that was half-baked an unfinished, why even publicly air it at all? What this muddy process suggests is that the design advisors, politicians and potentially their media advisers don’t appear to have been on the same page in terms of the design process itself.

The first ‘placeholder’ design dubbed the ‘Pizza Hut Pagoda’ released in December 2017

Once again however we are seeing a very carefully managed media announcement. In announcing the new design, the public were presented with just 3 images. The first image being from the Yarra, the second being from approximately Eureka Tower and the third an image, with almost no useful information at all, was from a deck looking out toward Southbank. So what will the experience be like in Federation Square? We don’t actually know. No image was provided. If this were a design critique at a university, excluding such critical views of the project would be cause for serious discussion and likely be reflected in substantially lower grades.

No doubt there will be more images to follow, once the media attention has focussed elsewhere. The design intent cannot be hidden indefinitely, but if the more controversial images are withheld from the initial media announcement, less time will be spent dissecting them in the media. This does our democracy a disservice.

The view from the proposed balcony in the giant iPad

The Brand

An often misunderstood issue arising from the insertion of a corporate giant in our public square is the clash of brands. Yes there are other shops at Federation Square, but they have a few things in common. First of all they are all supplementary to, and supportive of, Federation Square as a cultural gathering space. Secondly they all have very minimal signage. The signage throughout the square has been purposefully heavily restricted for all businesses to ensure that the architecture and civic atmosphere can be uninterrupted by corporate self-promotion.

Returning to Apple’s use of architecture as a billboard, it is worth considering the value that this adds to Apple as a proposition. As a comparison, if a corporation such as Apple were to desire a billboard of equivalent effect as the proposed giant Apple Ipad, they might purchase space on the billboard opposite the square atop the Young and Jackson Pub. Should they wish to do this it would cost them approximately $100,000 for a one in ten timeshare of the digital signage, for 28 days. To hire this billboard exclusively would therefore cost approximately $1,000,000 per 28 days. To get an equivalent 20 year advertising proposition to the Apple store proposal at Federation Square, would therefore be in the order of $260 million dollars. This is the value that Apple is extracting by leaching parasitically off of the Fed Square’s well established and internationally recognised brand of public space

This is clearly an eye watering amount just in advertising, but how just much is Apple paying to be at Federation Square? Well we don’t know, because that is confidential. All we do know is that the taxpayer won’t be paying for the demolition of the Yarra Building or the construction of the Apple Store, rumoured to be at approximately $100 million dollars. Despite these costs being born by Apple, they still appear to be the beneficiary of a corporate ‘free-kick’ worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

If our State Government wouldn’t permit Apple to construct a building sized billboard on the existing Yarra Building, then they should not permit Apple to get an advertising bonanza by building their ‘Giant iPad’ there.

The Takeaway

Ultimately the refined giant iPad design makes the issues around corporatisation of the square even worse than the ‘Pizza Hut Pagoda’. At a time when architects are more concerned than ever about place specific design, the last thing our city needs is to dilute our iconic spaces with generic international gimmicks.

Architecture is for everyone