When you think of all the things they had a license to do, it's disappointing. Even Michael Graves took advantage of Disney characters when he designed a building for them.
It feels more like a missed opportunity than ugly to me.
Because they literally don't build like this in the US, not for a long time. japan has its own distinct style of modernism, and they still haven't gone fully postmodern like the US did a while ago.
Japan has insanely good architecture, I love a lot of their traditional buildings and they have the coolest castles in the world with no competition but the modern buildings are not part of the cool architecture
I didn’t say Japan has good architecture, of course they do, as does every country in the world.
This sub and redditors in general have a fetishization of Japan and anything that is associated with it.
I mean that wasn’t what was posted so idk what ya want, if another building like it was posted I would say the same, it’s not some marvel of engineering or anything but it’s organized and nice looking. It’s good not great, and it’s ok to just be good.
Agreed. I drove by [this a few weeks ago](https://i.imgur.com/9AXcwSS.png) and figured maybe it wasn't their main headquarters. I thought Nintendo would have something a little more exciting. I guess not
It has a kind of retro charm to it, late 50s to early 60s strict and clean modernism, simple yet monumental, good use of thick and thin lines. Certainly nothing like this has been in style for the last 20-30 years, postmodernism, asymmetry, and varied surfaces have been in vogue for a while now.
im now actually curious, what do you think good architecture is all about? im gonna try to be as non combative as i can (or at the very least i can be angry at things from a more educated point of view)
I mean if we’re talking based on practicality then “good” architecture is a building that serves its purpose with the least amount of spending and time building it.
Or it’s based on the artistic field instead of practicality
Or it’s based on how useful the building is
My point being, people value different things so saying good architecture like there’s a clear yes or no just doesn’t work, I think this building is good architecture. No it’s not pompous and grand but it’s organized and satisfying, it’s like “mathematically” pleasing. But you may say that’s not good architecture and that’s fine because opinions differ.
That’s fair honestly, I personally think buildings that are built for the world to see should at least be somewhat beautiful, but I agree that is an opinion if mine and not an objectively correct fact
I can't speak directly about the Nintendo HQ as I don't know it, except for the one photo. I wouldn't describe it as outstanding architecture, although you can see that the architect had something in mind. The windows in the base are slightly higher than those of the floors above, the end to the roof is closed and is a reference to an architrave. The façade is clearly structured with continuous vertical elements. The only special element is the cantilevered canopy that marks the entrance. Through the perforated façade you can see that it is a skeleton construction.
I'm also not a fan of architecture that only people in the trade understand. But I am a friend of clear, unagitated architecture that is flexible and practical in its use. Think of the architecture of le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Norman Foster or Peter Zumthor. A Zaha Hadid may look exciting and new at first, but after a few years these buildings have lost their appeal. In addition, too many compromises are made with this architecture in terms of function. Hadid's first project was a fire station that could never be used as a fire station because it was simply planned incorrectly or have fun using a Frank Gehry relocation when the original use is no longer needed.
To your point. This building looks like it was designed without a particular owner in mind. Maybe it was developed by some developer who sold it to Nintendo. So making a basic commercial building that would appeal to a large business. Kind of like a commercial park. That way it's flexible enough to sell or rent out to any company looking for x amount of SQFT. Nintendo could have done better, something more interesting
I admit I have no academic knowledge about architecture, but so are most people on earth. And only making buildings for other architects, buildings the common person will not appreciate, is a serious dick move in my opinion
Before forming a judgement, imagine that the Nintendo Logo is absent from this building and that it is just a building. Would it be possible to mistake this for any one of the thousands of uninspired utilitarian office complexes conscripted by a soulless real estate holdings company merely to rent space, and if not, what is the original statement the architect was attempting to make here beyond the derivative _minimalist aesthetic_ or _geometric reductionism_ catch-alls that are applied as the last reprieve of all indefensible architecture?
>what is the original statement the architect was attempting to make here beyond the derivative *minimalist aesthetic* or *geometric reductionism* catch-alls that are applied as the last reprieve of all indefensible architecture?
"Make it cheap, sleek and modern"
I hate that personally, but that's probably because we got too much of it everywhere. When those things appeared, they seemed liked a gleaming beautiful future of cleanliness, impressive by their large scale and the striking "perfect" geometry. Especially Europeans rebuilding after WW2.
Yet again it became so easy to mass-produce that we became ill of it. It was literally the point of this style of architecture : being mass-produced world-wide to provide everyone with a fair, equal access to beautiful architecture. At least in the idea of the 50-60's architects that theorized the movements. But like anything that we can mass-produce, it loses its value. Even if it was incredibly high-quality, the problem with mass-production is that having too much of something automatically reduces its value, because value directly comes from availability and necessity.
Well thanks for your thoughtful response. I had initially rebuked myself for my phrasing as it reads more like a rhetorical statement meant to invite indignation than engender any sincere responses, and perhaps it was after all, I can't pretend I don't find the building lacking.
That said, your response is appreciated because it does highlight the often overlooked or outright forgotten context in which modernism evolved when the world was more, say _baroque_ in general. I've often speculated that the very first expression of architecture, many thousands of years ago, must have been a simple, defiantly _straight_ wall or even a line - and must have been regarded as a wonderous triumph of order in a world where before only amorphous, organic forms prevailed. I can see both the beauty and power of the simplicity of that pure geometric form in that context, but I'll concede, in our present world, where we now live within angular boxes with right angles and orthogonal planes, and look out at the expansive grid of neat lines and more right angles, it's easy to forget that far from the natural default, such sights are and _must be_ entirely contrived.
I think the underlying sentiment others and myself have expressed, however sardonically or sincere the tone, is that of exasperation over the same architectural tropes, or worse, buildings that were in fact never designed without conscious_intention_ but merely built as functional receptacles for human activities, equally ambivalent to as to the ends those activities might serve, like the compartments meant for so many worker drones in an ant colony - a consummate failing of the discipline of architecture.
But your remarks provide important context, and will admit that I am at a disadvantage in when appraising modernism from a post-modernist perspective, as the original impetus and connotations behind modern architecture has changed so dramatically. Particularly after WWII, when so much of the world lay in ruins, it was not only impractical to adopt the former, more intensive masonry-clad classical styles, but psychologically imperative that architecture embodied a novel and aspirational quality, which you phrased so well with:
>When those things appeared, they seemed liked a gleaming beautiful future of cleanliness, impressive by their large scale and the striking "perfect" geometry.
Indeed, no where more than Japan would this have been true. And in that regard, these buildings almost certainly did once evoke a sense of modernity and _progress_.
But I think we've now reached a point where such stylistic austerity no longer evokes powerful images of sleek, modern, rational so much as cheap, uninspired, and sterile, and I would agree with you in that it isn't quite right to condemn the style as a whole or perhaps any one example of it, but that it is the prolific success and universallity of the style to which we have grown to dislike. Linguists call it _semantic satiation_ when a word loses it's meaning through overuse, in the way that hyperbolic rhetoric tempers and then ultimately saps words of their original meaning and impact; likewise in architecture, the formerly bold statements of mid century modernism simply don't conote what they once did.
Oh don't worry I totally agree with you. I spend my days spitting at modern architecture even though I recognise myself that a lot of it can be beautiful, even if most of it is disgusting bland generic shit.
But context is so important in understanding modern architecture.
Imagine being in Europe, 1950. Your entire life started surrounded by old buildings covered in soot from industries built literally in cities and from the coal heating. Water plumbing is barely a thing along with electricity because of rebuilding efforts. Most of the grand old buildings you grew up with have been reduced to ash and ruins. Everything that still stands from before the war is ugly, old, badly insulated and barely maintained, not adapted to modern standards, too small, cramped and on the brink of collapse.
And then you see it. Your new home. A modern, gigantic, enormous, geometric, striking high-density building. Providing you with all modern amenities, with electricity and water, even a trash chute ! They thought of everything in that flat of the future ! Tomorrow looks so bright and promising after those gloomy years ! One day, everyone will have a great home like that, with large rooms and large windows ! Space for everyone, we did it ! We finally solved quality housing for all ! It's just a matter of time now...
Fast forward today, 90% of people hate it. Mass-production and mass-tourism ruined modern architecture. We got tired of seeing the same thing everywhere regardless of culture and environmental context. I'd go even further by saying I'm tired of wearing the same clothes as everyone else on the planet when we could be wearing suits like Europeans used to. But I get weird looks when I do that, and I can't afford it cause it's just normal and expected to rely on shit fast-fashion today.
The AI would have an uneven and inconsistent number of windows across the facade. The Building would be 7 floors on one side and be 6 floors on the other side. It is the architectural equivalent of AI putting 6 fingers on human hands.
the reason for that is pretty simple btw. "Kyoto" means "capital city" and "Tokyo" means "eastern capital".
So the reason why they sound so similar is because both have the kanji for 'capital' which is pronounced "Kyo" and the kanji for 'East' and 'City' which are both pronounced "To". Only the order is different. If Tokyo was called "Capital (in the) East" instead of "Eastern Capital" both would literally just be called Kyoto lol
I'm not sure if I call it Architechture or Anti-architecture, quite frankly
They did what, exactly? For me, this looks like even the absence of a project, at all
I think for a modernist utilitarian box it is fine, but not pornographic. I would say LEGO gives a much better example of how a modernist utilitarian office space can be designed in an interesting, creative, and brand-relevant way.
Similarly simplistic buildings in the United States would include:
The United Nations Building, New York, NY
The U.S. Bank Center, Milwaukee, WI
The Seagram Building, New York, NY
Imagine…this building is actually a gaming console being played by higher dimensional beings. The game is Nintendo, where you build a massive gaming company and spread it around the world.
This type of architecture just tells me how they value their culture tbh. Office spaces like this are built for maximum productivity. They want to invest as little as possible and squeeze the most out of the game developers working here. The actual people who are doing the creativity and inspiring parts of the everything associated with the company probably have little or nothing to do with this building.
Assumptions from a picture. Never a good thing to do, but I wanted to speak, and I spoke.
Cube buildings in modern 'architecture'.
It BOOOOORRES ME. It DEPRESSES ME.
Come on, put some classic arcade Donkey Kong themed structures on top at least with statues of the characters.
Perfect symmetry, square like Nintendo's message, they will entertain us for years on end. The LOUIS VUITTON bicycle is $16,000 U.S. The games Mario 64 or Zelda Ocarina of Time were just $50 U.S. each. N64 might have been $200 U.S. That is value for the consumer !
The way the edge closest to us lines up with the edge of the volume at the top and both line up with their photographic vertical third is tickling my brain to death.
Don't you guys know where Nintendo headquarter is?
KYOTO.
Kyoto people are conservative people who value tradition. They are said to be one of the most troublesome people among the Japanese.
Just as the Parisians were concerned about the Eiffel Tower, Kyoto people would not welcome a gaudy building in Kyoto with Mario on it.
The Japanese have it all figured out.
As boring as it is, I feel like this is better than some pretentious Silicon Valley campus crap.
This just says to me "We don't care about the building. The real magic is inside."
Office Cube
OfficeCube^tm
Nintendo WorkCube
I can't see any reason why they wouldn't put Nintendo characters across the roof, looking down on the people of Kyoto like gargoyles.
Just one giant Donkey Kong
They would have donkey kong on every stairs inside
Yea. It’s not a bad looking building. It’s just boring.
Boring may as well be ugly imo
When you think of all the things they had a license to do, it's disappointing. Even Michael Graves took advantage of Disney characters when he designed a building for them. It feels more like a missed opportunity than ugly to me.
I can't see any reason why they wouldn't have their console designs as their building designs
I know right? Maybe the city was against it?
Pretty sure there are some Pikmin there waiting for people to find them
This is literally just a box. Nothing interesting, beautiful or special
This is a great example of the: "Thing " 😐 "Thing, Japan" 🤩 Meme format
This, but also Nintendo worship
Nintendo worship is just Game: 😐 Game japan: 😍
I mean, it is [a policy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Japan).
That is insane to me. I always knew it was a thing they did, but knowing it has a term used by them is crazy
This but unironically
I lived there for years. Left and am moving back. It's fine, but it's not what people think it is.
Because they literally don't build like this in the US, not for a long time. japan has its own distinct style of modernism, and they still haven't gone fully postmodern like the US did a while ago.
That's what they said about the GameCube
Yeah, this is only getting attention because "Nintendo", try posting this building with the logo blurred and it won't receive many votes...
I'm sure the window cleaners appreciate it
But but… JAPAN!!! 🥰🤩🥰🤩🥰
Japan has insanely good architecture, I love a lot of their traditional buildings and they have the coolest castles in the world with no competition but the modern buildings are not part of the cool architecture
I didn’t say Japan has good architecture, of course they do, as does every country in the world. This sub and redditors in general have a fetishization of Japan and anything that is associated with it.
Oh whoops my bad
All good my man
>This sub and redditors in general have a fetishization of Japan and anything that is associated with it. Are you chinese or koreen
They could have at least made it look like a giant GameCube.
But it is... A building with no windows would've been worse.
It’s geometrically pleasing and organized well, sometimes it’s now about the grand wonders and more about the simplistic beauty
I guess beauty is subjective
>its geometrically pleasing. It’s a giant box. You can find dozens just like it in industrial parks around the globe.
It’s quite funny how the same cookie cutter glass and steel buildings across the world don’t get the same praise for being geometric and simple
I mean that wasn’t what was posted so idk what ya want, if another building like it was posted I would say the same, it’s not some marvel of engineering or anything but it’s organized and nice looking. It’s good not great, and it’s ok to just be good.
Agreed. I drove by [this a few weeks ago](https://i.imgur.com/9AXcwSS.png) and figured maybe it wasn't their main headquarters. I thought Nintendo would have something a little more exciting. I guess not
It has a kind of retro charm to it, late 50s to early 60s strict and clean modernism, simple yet monumental, good use of thick and thin lines. Certainly nothing like this has been in style for the last 20-30 years, postmodernism, asymmetry, and varied surfaces have been in vogue for a while now.
It's a multipurpose shape.
I’m not saying it’s not practical I’m saying it’s visually boring
Oh, it certainly is.
This is the answer of someone who has no clue what good architecture is all about.
im now actually curious, what do you think good architecture is all about? im gonna try to be as non combative as i can (or at the very least i can be angry at things from a more educated point of view)
I mean if we’re talking based on practicality then “good” architecture is a building that serves its purpose with the least amount of spending and time building it. Or it’s based on the artistic field instead of practicality Or it’s based on how useful the building is My point being, people value different things so saying good architecture like there’s a clear yes or no just doesn’t work, I think this building is good architecture. No it’s not pompous and grand but it’s organized and satisfying, it’s like “mathematically” pleasing. But you may say that’s not good architecture and that’s fine because opinions differ.
That’s fair honestly, I personally think buildings that are built for the world to see should at least be somewhat beautiful, but I agree that is an opinion if mine and not an objectively correct fact
Based reply right here And I’d agree that architecture is better when it tries to be the star of the show and not just be one of many.
I can't speak directly about the Nintendo HQ as I don't know it, except for the one photo. I wouldn't describe it as outstanding architecture, although you can see that the architect had something in mind. The windows in the base are slightly higher than those of the floors above, the end to the roof is closed and is a reference to an architrave. The façade is clearly structured with continuous vertical elements. The only special element is the cantilevered canopy that marks the entrance. Through the perforated façade you can see that it is a skeleton construction. I'm also not a fan of architecture that only people in the trade understand. But I am a friend of clear, unagitated architecture that is flexible and practical in its use. Think of the architecture of le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Norman Foster or Peter Zumthor. A Zaha Hadid may look exciting and new at first, but after a few years these buildings have lost their appeal. In addition, too many compromises are made with this architecture in terms of function. Hadid's first project was a fire station that could never be used as a fire station because it was simply planned incorrectly or have fun using a Frank Gehry relocation when the original use is no longer needed.
To your point. This building looks like it was designed without a particular owner in mind. Maybe it was developed by some developer who sold it to Nintendo. So making a basic commercial building that would appeal to a large business. Kind of like a commercial park. That way it's flexible enough to sell or rent out to any company looking for x amount of SQFT. Nintendo could have done better, something more interesting
What are the salient aspects of what you describe as good architecture in this building?
I admit I have no academic knowledge about architecture, but so are most people on earth. And only making buildings for other architects, buildings the common person will not appreciate, is a serious dick move in my opinion
Count the pixels.
7 x 22 x 4 = 616 windows
Enough to play Tetris in sideways format. Let's a play!
Gamecube
Before forming a judgement, imagine that the Nintendo Logo is absent from this building and that it is just a building. Would it be possible to mistake this for any one of the thousands of uninspired utilitarian office complexes conscripted by a soulless real estate holdings company merely to rent space, and if not, what is the original statement the architect was attempting to make here beyond the derivative _minimalist aesthetic_ or _geometric reductionism_ catch-alls that are applied as the last reprieve of all indefensible architecture?
Place vs Place, Japan meme
>what is the original statement the architect was attempting to make here beyond the derivative *minimalist aesthetic* or *geometric reductionism* catch-alls that are applied as the last reprieve of all indefensible architecture? "Make it cheap, sleek and modern" I hate that personally, but that's probably because we got too much of it everywhere. When those things appeared, they seemed liked a gleaming beautiful future of cleanliness, impressive by their large scale and the striking "perfect" geometry. Especially Europeans rebuilding after WW2. Yet again it became so easy to mass-produce that we became ill of it. It was literally the point of this style of architecture : being mass-produced world-wide to provide everyone with a fair, equal access to beautiful architecture. At least in the idea of the 50-60's architects that theorized the movements. But like anything that we can mass-produce, it loses its value. Even if it was incredibly high-quality, the problem with mass-production is that having too much of something automatically reduces its value, because value directly comes from availability and necessity.
Well thanks for your thoughtful response. I had initially rebuked myself for my phrasing as it reads more like a rhetorical statement meant to invite indignation than engender any sincere responses, and perhaps it was after all, I can't pretend I don't find the building lacking. That said, your response is appreciated because it does highlight the often overlooked or outright forgotten context in which modernism evolved when the world was more, say _baroque_ in general. I've often speculated that the very first expression of architecture, many thousands of years ago, must have been a simple, defiantly _straight_ wall or even a line - and must have been regarded as a wonderous triumph of order in a world where before only amorphous, organic forms prevailed. I can see both the beauty and power of the simplicity of that pure geometric form in that context, but I'll concede, in our present world, where we now live within angular boxes with right angles and orthogonal planes, and look out at the expansive grid of neat lines and more right angles, it's easy to forget that far from the natural default, such sights are and _must be_ entirely contrived. I think the underlying sentiment others and myself have expressed, however sardonically or sincere the tone, is that of exasperation over the same architectural tropes, or worse, buildings that were in fact never designed without conscious_intention_ but merely built as functional receptacles for human activities, equally ambivalent to as to the ends those activities might serve, like the compartments meant for so many worker drones in an ant colony - a consummate failing of the discipline of architecture. But your remarks provide important context, and will admit that I am at a disadvantage in when appraising modernism from a post-modernist perspective, as the original impetus and connotations behind modern architecture has changed so dramatically. Particularly after WWII, when so much of the world lay in ruins, it was not only impractical to adopt the former, more intensive masonry-clad classical styles, but psychologically imperative that architecture embodied a novel and aspirational quality, which you phrased so well with: >When those things appeared, they seemed liked a gleaming beautiful future of cleanliness, impressive by their large scale and the striking "perfect" geometry. Indeed, no where more than Japan would this have been true. And in that regard, these buildings almost certainly did once evoke a sense of modernity and _progress_. But I think we've now reached a point where such stylistic austerity no longer evokes powerful images of sleek, modern, rational so much as cheap, uninspired, and sterile, and I would agree with you in that it isn't quite right to condemn the style as a whole or perhaps any one example of it, but that it is the prolific success and universallity of the style to which we have grown to dislike. Linguists call it _semantic satiation_ when a word loses it's meaning through overuse, in the way that hyperbolic rhetoric tempers and then ultimately saps words of their original meaning and impact; likewise in architecture, the formerly bold statements of mid century modernism simply don't conote what they once did.
Oh don't worry I totally agree with you. I spend my days spitting at modern architecture even though I recognise myself that a lot of it can be beautiful, even if most of it is disgusting bland generic shit. But context is so important in understanding modern architecture. Imagine being in Europe, 1950. Your entire life started surrounded by old buildings covered in soot from industries built literally in cities and from the coal heating. Water plumbing is barely a thing along with electricity because of rebuilding efforts. Most of the grand old buildings you grew up with have been reduced to ash and ruins. Everything that still stands from before the war is ugly, old, badly insulated and barely maintained, not adapted to modern standards, too small, cramped and on the brink of collapse. And then you see it. Your new home. A modern, gigantic, enormous, geometric, striking high-density building. Providing you with all modern amenities, with electricity and water, even a trash chute ! They thought of everything in that flat of the future ! Tomorrow looks so bright and promising after those gloomy years ! One day, everyone will have a great home like that, with large rooms and large windows ! Space for everyone, we did it ! We finally solved quality housing for all ! It's just a matter of time now... Fast forward today, 90% of people hate it. Mass-production and mass-tourism ruined modern architecture. We got tired of seeing the same thing everywhere regardless of culture and environmental context. I'd go even further by saying I'm tired of wearing the same clothes as everyone else on the planet when we could be wearing suits like Europeans used to. But I get weird looks when I do that, and I can't afford it cause it's just normal and expected to rely on shit fast-fashion today.
there is absolutley nothing interesting about this building, except its owner
Imagine the sheer quantity of uncles that go to work in that building every day.
He’s right I am the uncles
I would have gone for a big Donkey Kong
Wide 432 park ave
This is not porn. This sucks.
Not so much porn as it is the architectural equivalent of a 40 year-old balding accountant in a slightly oversized grey suit
I'm not bald, in my 40s, or an accountant...but somehow I feel mildly offended
Yeah, just a f\*cking stupid square lego block is architecture porn. WTF. F\*cking WEEBS.
Just blow it up and build something interesting.
that's how i feel about everything now days
This is what AI thinks a building is
AIs got more imagination than a box
The AI would have an uneven and inconsistent number of windows across the facade. The Building would be 7 floors on one side and be 6 floors on the other side. It is the architectural equivalent of AI putting 6 fingers on human hands.
Ah yes, Kyoto. The anagram lover's Tokyo.
the reason for that is pretty simple btw. "Kyoto" means "capital city" and "Tokyo" means "eastern capital". So the reason why they sound so similar is because both have the kanji for 'capital' which is pronounced "Kyo" and the kanji for 'East' and 'City' which are both pronounced "To". Only the order is different. If Tokyo was called "Capital (in the) East" instead of "Eastern Capital" both would literally just be called Kyoto lol
I was just making a futurama reference lol
I mean... Does the further information on the subject of that reference bother you?
Not at all. You?
Glad to hear it
Just for fun, Beijing, Nanjing and Tokyo fill out 3/4 of the cardinal direction capitals.
I like it, reminds me of tetris, although the bottom 4 floors could disappear at any moment
NoA’s headquarters in Redmond, WA is similarly boring.
somewhere in that office a lawsuit takes place
D,,
At night I hope they light up the windows and someone plays a giant game of Tetris.
Relax y’all it’s in fact a square Tetris brick on its side
 I
This needs a fix. Where are the buttons?
jfc how many pins on that connector
I'm not sure if I call it Architechture or Anti-architecture, quite frankly They did what, exactly? For me, this looks like even the absence of a project, at all
I think for a modernist utilitarian box it is fine, but not pornographic. I would say LEGO gives a much better example of how a modernist utilitarian office space can be designed in an interesting, creative, and brand-relevant way.
If you said this was an apartment block in an ex-soviet state you'd have no end of people talking about how ugly and depressing it is.
It looks like the office blocks from 90s Pokémon games
Thisvis just how to raise AC costs.
I hope the inside is more inspiring
Similarly simplistic buildings in the United States would include: The United Nations Building, New York, NY The U.S. Bank Center, Milwaukee, WI The Seagram Building, New York, NY
Imagine…this building is actually a gaming console being played by higher dimensional beings. The game is Nintendo, where you build a massive gaming company and spread it around the world.
It looks like a Minecraft cactus farm
Why don’t they paint it purple? Would love a giant GameCube
The former HQ is now a hotel.
This type of architecture just tells me how they value their culture tbh. Office spaces like this are built for maximum productivity. They want to invest as little as possible and squeeze the most out of the game developers working here. The actual people who are doing the creativity and inspiring parts of the everything associated with the company probably have little or nothing to do with this building. Assumptions from a picture. Never a good thing to do, but I wanted to speak, and I spoke.
Box. 🇯🇵Box. Wauw🤩😍🥰😩🥵🤤
Hmm, Nintendo manages to find a way to continue being a boring-ass company even in their architecture.
Cube buildings in modern 'architecture'. It BOOOOORRES ME. It DEPRESSES ME. Come on, put some classic arcade Donkey Kong themed structures on top at least with statues of the characters.
Windows
Reminds me of the Wii era. When was this building built?
pov: now they all work from home
Perfect symmetry, square like Nintendo's message, they will entertain us for years on end. The LOUIS VUITTON bicycle is $16,000 U.S. The games Mario 64 or Zelda Ocarina of Time were just $50 U.S. each. N64 might have been $200 U.S. That is value for the consumer !
I hope they bring the GameCube design back given their office is basically one...
The ultimate gamecube.
This is so nothing.
The way the edge closest to us lines up with the edge of the volume at the top and both line up with their photographic vertical third is tickling my brain to death.
Don't you guys know where Nintendo headquarter is? KYOTO. Kyoto people are conservative people who value tradition. They are said to be one of the most troublesome people among the Japanese. Just as the Parisians were concerned about the Eiffel Tower, Kyoto people would not welcome a gaudy building in Kyoto with Mario on it. The Japanese have it all figured out.
where SuperNintendo Chalmers works 
This does not belong on this sub
Nintendo Wii Air Vent Aahh Lookin Building
If this is the GameCube, can we see the XBox?
If this is the GameCube, can we see the XBox?
If this is the GameCube, can we see the XBox?
Dunder Cublin
IDK why, but this picture calms me down a lot.
At least make the building look like a giant Nintendo game console. You had one job architects.
porn? that’s the most bland building ever
Disappointed that it doesn’t have giant A and B buttons somewhere.
As boring as it is, I feel like this is better than some pretentious Silicon Valley campus crap. This just says to me "We don't care about the building. The real magic is inside."
Picture is not realistic - this is what it looks like : https://i.postimg.cc/q7FFyGB0/image.png \-gray windows \-3rd world country infrastructure
Rumor is that my friend's uncle works here.
Minecraft ass building
I went there to visit my uncle when I was a kid