Saturday’s grand opening of the Higuera Street (San Luis Obispo, Calif.) store demonstrated not only the continuing enthusiasm of Apple’s fans, but also the company’s willingness to compromise on architecture when confronted by cities trying to maintain their small-town look. The architectural plans of the new store changed several times over the past year, providing a lesson in politics, permits, negotiation, architecture, construction and urbanization.
Apple is willing to act tough when it comes to its brand, which includes the architecture of its 183-store chain. Modifying the brand architecture is akin to changing the company’s retail values, and that must never happen, in Apple’s corporate mind. But behind the defiance lies one weakness–the artisans of building design whose creative minds don’t tolerate defeat. For Apple’s architects, a city’s objections merely set them in motion to create a solution. When given the chance, the team at Bohlin Cywinsi Jackson can craft a solution to any objection.
When San Luis Obispo mayor Dave Romero appeared in front of the store on Saturday, he was warmly greeted by Apple retail execs. “I’m glad to have you here,” Romero told them, only hinting at the lengthy approval process for Apple’s architectural design. “Oh, we’re happy to be here,” came the reply. Someone quickly retrieved a commemorative T-shirt for Romero. “Should I put it on?” he wondered out loud.
Romero no doubt recalled that Apple had proposed that the existing two-bay, set-back storefront be modified extensively. The façade would be converted to a single opening by removing a center red brick pillar, and the single entrance would be moved forward to the sidewalk. The exterior would feature a frame of stainless steel, topped by a back-lit Apple logo. Along the sidestreet, windows would be frosted and backed on the inside with a solid wall.
Those initial plans were met with objections by city commissions and committees, who felt they didn’t meet the city’s Community Design Guidelines. The design wasn’t compatible with other buildings in the district, some felt, which relied much more on natural materials for their storefronts.
After an initial round of discussion, Apple’s proposal disappeared from the agendas of city planing agencies. By October 2006 Apple had requested that its proposal be postponed from the Architectural Review Commission agenda, “to a date uncertain.” But the next month, action on the space began again, this time for dividing the space up into two smaller stores that didn’t require removal of the storefront support column. Interestingly, Apple’s name was completely absent from the proposal, and instead used the building owner’s name as the applicant. The Architectural Review Commission still objected to the fake sidestreet windows, so the building owner appealed to the city council. In January 2007 the council voted 3-2 to approve the architectural design, perhaps feeling that sales tax revenue and jobs was worth some measure of architectural incompatibility.
Under the plan the council approved, Apple would keep their stainless steel and back-lit logo, but only on the inside of the store. The city would accept the fake windows with frosted glass on the sidestreet, and didn’t insist on real, see-through windows.
Several other cities have bumped up against Apple and its steadfastness when dealing with retail store plans. New York, Boston, Portland and other cities have had to make a choice: approve or lose revenue. In some cases Apple has folded its hand and moved on. In other cities, a compromise resulted in a new Apple store.
For a photo of the finished product, check here.
Watch the grand opening video.
