or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple planning massive 12,000 capacity "spaceship" campus in Cupertino
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple planning massive 12,000 capacity "spaceship" campus in Cupertino - Page 4

post #121 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't understand your "other concern" at all.

Other huge companies have failed and left their flagship corporate headquarters behind.

A mixed use center like GM's world headquarters with multiple companies, hotels, etc could continue on should GM leave it. Which GM reportedly was considering.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...-rattner-obama

It still would have been a huge body blow to Detroit but at least there are other tenants there.

A large cluster of office buildings like what exists in the HP park can be viably leased to a bunch of companies. If the total occupancy is only 25% these could be in the newest buildings while the less economically viable ones are demo'd and replace with something else.

With a large single building half the size of the pentagon (pentagon holds 23K employees)?

It's a valid concern for a Post-Jobs Apple. Apple went from sky's the limit in 1984 with Jobs showing the world the first Macintosh to free-falling in 1995 under Spindler.

Here's a reminder of corporate failures from that time period and I'd say the economic situation is worse than mid-90s.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/23/re...abandoned.html

You hope for the best but should plan for the worst. In this building you likely have to gauge the probability that a new single tenant would appear to occupy the building in the kind of environment which sees Apple leaving Cupertino for whatever reason.
post #122 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

... Don't get me wrong, I think that Apples stores look great, but I think that what makes them look special is more due to their choice of materials rather than their simple, geometric shapes. If Apple hadn't made many of their stores using primarily glass, then nobody would have cared about a cube made out of bricks.

post #123 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's their job. Their concern isn't for Apple, it's for the community. Will what Apple is doing hurt or benefit it? That what they have to be concerned about. Having done work for the community board here in my area, I see how opposed they can be to projects. This was one of the friendliest receptions I've ever seen. They asked for little other than what would be expected, and the question about WiFi was tongue in cheek, and who knows, he might have agreed.

Most satisfying.

Fella, I've PUT people in public office. You have no idea who you're talking to.

With that out of the way, I agree this was mild opposition at worst. The council was more or less cowed. But get some perspective: The global economy is sinking. The market's about to crash (yes, again). Anyplace else on Earth would PAY Apple to locate in their community, and pay them well.

Yet Jobs felt compelled to remind these CLOWNS that his company pays taxes, because he's had problems with them before. Apple keeps Cupertino afloat, let's face it. It's not 'tongue in cheek' to ask for free Wi-Fi. It's stupid, tacky, and tasteless.

But hey, tick Jobs off with a 'cute' remark. He has billions of company dollars in the bank and the world at his feet. Go ahead, say something self-serving and stupid. No way he follows through on the veiled threat he felt it was necessary to make about Apple picking up and leaving, right? No way he's thinking about the years-long nightmare he was put through re his personal residence, right? And there's just no way he hears the clock ticking because he does not know if he'll live long enough to see this thing built.... right?

Sure, go ahead. Indulge yourself. Make your cutesy remark. What could happen?
post #124 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Jobs did mention conferences. He specifically did mention the WWDC, so with over one million square feet in the building, which is wider than you may think, it's likely that they will do their presentations there. Remember that at theWWDc, he apologized for the size of the conference, and states that it was the biggest space they could get. Possibly, they will have more room here. The cafeterior will seat 3,000, so a bigger conference area is certainly possible.

Moscone Center is 2M square feet. Moscone West is obviously a smaller segment of that total space
but covers nearly a block and is three stories above ground.

The issue is that Apple doesn't need Moscone West 365 days a year but wants something bigger than that for a week. Whatever the size, it's unlikely that Apple has structured the 1M sq ft of floor space to be a multi-use conference center.

Something the city might like to have for economic stimulus and would be willing to trade tax revenue to get.
post #125 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I've been wondering for some time what Apple was going to do with that campus. It appeared to me to be so much land for so many new employees that Apple was going to enter some entirely new businesses. But I didn't realize that Apple had so many employees "off campus" in rented properties.

I think the idea of having just one office building on this campus, hiding much of the garage space (although how do you get thousands of people in and out of an underground garage efficiently?) and increasing the amount of green is absolutely brilliant. But Jobs played a few of his usual games as well: first he said "there's only going to be one building". But then there's also going to be the 2nd garage, the testing areas, the gym, the auditorium, the power plant, etc.

According to the diagram, the above-ground parking facility will be on the north side of 280. But Apple also owns the land on the south side of 280. Wonder what they'll do with that or whether they'll decide they don't need it and will attempt to sell it.

Then Jobs spoke about the fact that it will probably be self-powered, using the grid as a backup. But he didn't mention whether or not it would actually be LEED certified and since he didn't mention it, I doubt that it will be.

And there will be some negative impacts: while Apple is keeping the current campus (although will the employees who stay there feel less slighted in some way?), they'd be leaving all of their rental properties. That's going to put an awful lot of space on the market at one time and might erode Cupertino's tax revenues for a period.

Also, while I understand Steve's reluctance as the largest employer and taxpayer in Cupertino to give more (like the free WiFi, although wouldn't ubiquitous WiFi in Cupertino also help Apple?), would it really be such a big deal to open a store in Cupertino? Steve seemed insulted to even be asked. Even if it didn't make a lot of money, sometimes it's worth caving on a few issues. If a big store wouldn't make money, they can open a smaller, mall-type store. And even though Apple pays lots of taxes, there's nothing wrong with Apple also donating to the community. Barons of the past built universities, museums, libraries, parks, etc.

Apple should donate equipment to the local public school system. If it improved the education of the local community, it would benefit Apple in the long term in terms of being able to hire quality workers locally and it would also get people hooked into the Apple eco-system at an early age. They could give the schools discontinued models when new models are announced. And Apple could deduct the value as another tax break anyway.

I'm sure this project will be even more derided than the cube on the Fifth Avenue store. People will be talking about "Steve's spaceship" forever. But it is brilliant. I have to wonder whether the single round office building was Steve's idea or an architect's idea. And I sincerely hope that Steve is around and healthy to see it completed and opened.

I think your concerns are overdone. There is no doubt that Apple make a number of concessions, because that's always the case.

It's also nice of you to say what Apple should give away. This isn't a state owned company. It shouldn't be required to supplement the state. It's already paying mucho taxes, and that the point of those taxes, to do what you want done.

Steve said that they will leave the other buildings around the city over a period of years. It's just not possible to do it all at once because of the logistics.

Stores have to stand on their own, but we don't know what Apple may do here. It's possible they may open a small one. As far as the WiFi goes, municipal WiFi has been fought all around the country, with the courts usually backing up the private companies. If Apple wanted to give free WiFi, it would likely be tied up in the courts for years, as the IPS's fought it.

The cube on fifth Avenue is not derided at all. Maybe one of two writers don't like it. Big deal. Recently, it's been pointed out that it's become the most photographed landmark in NYC. So much for derision. No doubt there will be a small few who don't like this either. There always are for forward looking ideas. Many of the most famous landmark buildings around the world have their detractors, but really, who cares?
post #126 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Did people here notice that Apple bought that entire strip of property to the east of the campus? They filled in the indent in the east center, and then added the vertical area to that. I wonder how many more acres that includes?

In addition, talking about the apartment houses, or condo's, or co-ops, or whatever they are, they have just gone up in value by a good bit. While it's true that during construction, the noise will be higher, that will pass, and will be interesting to many, as it's Apple's Hq that's being built, and with such a unique building, and campus, that alone will have people wanting to live there.

Afterwards, those who are lucky enough to have higher apartments that face the campus will have a view that's spectacular, unique, and of a very famous landmark, for that's surely what it will become. As here in NYC, where Central Park apartments command top prices, so will these. And you can be sure that developers around the area will be trying to buy up land so that they can offer living space that oversees the campus, and especially the main building.

This will spark some interesting development in the area, as this becomes a magnet. I've seen it happen before on a smaller scale.

Not to mention that if those lucky enough to own or rent one of these condo's also work for Apple they'll be able to get out of bed 15 minutes before work.
I wonder what the Apple building would have looked like had Apple been able to buy that little residential area. Would the circle have been bigger, or just more centrally positioned?
post #127 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I agree that it's an academic argument and that Cupertino wouldn't do it. I was just pointing out the moral/legal issue.

Eminent Domain rules are definitely for governments only as we both agree. I'm sad to hear that the US has got to that point, but in my country the laws on this are still obeyed generally speaking. A company that wants to put up a building like this needs to buy the land, the city won't do it for them.

It's worse than just breaking the eminent domain "rules" when this kind of thing happens too because what you essentially have is the corporation *paying* the government (usually in the form of some invisible kickbacks), to invoke the governments power over the people, to violate the rights of the individuals involved.

Needless to say this is textbook Fascism. It's almost the exact definition of Fascism.

Thanks for the fine example of hyperbole!
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #128 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Actually, eminent domain is being increasingly used by local governments to force people or companies out to support other private developers. IMO, this should be illegal, but it is happening. One place it is happening is in Flushing, NY, near the Mets baseball stadium, where the City is forcing out hundreds of small car repair places so that new expensive condos and yet another shopping mall can be built. A foolish notion, IMO, considering that other new condos recently built nearby are having a tough time selling.

It's one thing to force business out for a new public hospital, school or even a highway. It's quite another to force them out to benefit large real estate interests.

But this is all besides the point. Cupertino wouldn't have used eminent domain to force those apartments out even if Apple had asked them to and Apple didn't ask. After all, if Apple is truly increasing the number of employees - and Steve contradicted himself on that point, first stating that this would brings lots of new well-off tax payers to the area, then stating at the end that it wouldn't really increase employment by that much - those people will need housing and you wouldn't want to destroy existing housing.

What he said was that Apple's employees are, for the most part, affluent. He also said that they wouldn't be adding many new employees, but he was talking about that as a percentage; 20%. that would actually be an addition of about 2,500 to 3,500, depending on whether the 12 thousand or the 13 thousand figure would be the final number.

So that's a fair number of new employees, earning good salaries, paying taxes, and buying from city businesses, adding to the payrolls of those businesses as well.

The city will benefit from this both short term, as the campus is being built, with local jobs as well as those coming in from the outside, availing themselves of local services while they work on the campus, and the additional permanent jobs that will be coming in over time after it is built. The number of jobs being added is a lot for a community the size of this one, and the council knows it.
post #129 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

And it was utterly brainless, as well.

Yep, it was.

Quote:
No way he follows through on the veiled threat he felt it was necessary to make about Apple picking up and leaving, right?

It was hardly veiled. And you're right...there are plenty of places that would offer him enough to take the loss on the land (likely if Apple was leaving the land value of what they bought would crater) and come out way ahead.

Apple leaving is something the council needs to consider and try to figure out how to mitigate. Given that Apple isn't asking for tax breaks (at least not publicly at this time) I'd try to figure out how to use this to diversify the tax base and make it a win proposition for both the city and apple.

Asking to be allowed to chip in (via tax breaks) to plus up the new build for mix use seems like one of the few opportunities here.
post #130 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

None of which are arguments for why it cannot be used to augment your electricity source. It's not an either/or issue.

We just had panels installed on our residence in California and went through all the paperwork. I've also attended PG&E classes that cover all the incentives and regulations. California has one of the most generous feed-in tariffs for commercial installations, and the payback period now is under 15 years for all but the most extravagant systems.

As I posted before, fitting panels to existing structure can make sense, but with best practice new build it may not. Watch the video on the link I posted a page or so back. You'll see that the final building they case study is out in the desert and while it has tons of solar panels in the campus there aren't any on the buildings themselves, because the buildings have had massive design work into allowing them to be passively cooled in the desert.

You're assuming that a good building will always be made better by slapping photo-voltaic panels onto it, but that's not true. Solar panels directly fixed to a building, will dramatically increase the cooling requirement due to their low albedo. They'll also potentially increase requirement for artificial lighting if they're replacing glass. It's a very complicated multivariate optimization.

Quote:
There are huge megawatt solar installations in Spain and in other countries that prioritize such things, and they are paying themselves back just like a gas or coal-fired power plant.

The Spanish plant that you're referring to isn't photo-voltaic though, it's a solar furnace as are most other large scale high efficiency plants. They make a lot of sense in an unpopulated desert location, but they're not really viable on the Apple campus

Solar has its place, but it isn't a panacea, it's become something of a Shibboleth for a lot of environmentalists though - which can stand in the way of good science and optimal building design.
post #131 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

I wish I could recount some of the stories I heard about the custom architecture of the NeXT campus back in the day, but I don't have time right now.

One aspect of all that glass that I'm not fond of is the heat load from the sun. If not done properly the south-facing rooms all have their blinds drawn most of the time, and the air-conditioning becomes a huge operating cost. I would hope and assume that the architects know all this and compensate accordingly, but I would rather see something in that climate with a lot more shade overhangs.

(I've spent summers in Silicon Valley, and it typically hovers around 80-90 degrees fahrenheit for five months out of the year. Corporate architects and clients often have more design ego than brains, and I don't think Jobs, for all his accomplishments, is above this.)

To get around this, companies (and homes) can plant deciduous plants in front of their sun-facing windows. That way, the leaves fall in the cold months (letting in sunlight) and block the sun in the warm months. But depending on your point of view the view of leaves on the ground is either pleasant or disgusting

But from the renderings, it looks like there's quite a setback between the building and the landscaping. They probably want to show off the architecture...
post #132 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

....Stores have to stand on their own, but we don't know what Apple may do here. It's possible they may open a small one. As far as the WiFi goes, municipal WiFi has been fought all around the country, with the courts usually backing up the private companies. If Apple wanted to give free WiFi, it would likely be tied up in the courts for years, as the IPS's fought it....

Its possible that Apple would get a ton of traffic to a campus store. Think of the tourist etc. I'd stop by. The building alone will be a tourist magnet to get snap shots etc

Now whether Apple would want that... doubt it.
Plus, don't want those Google boys and girls snooping around.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #133 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I wonder what the Apple building would have looked like had Apple been able to buy that little residential area.

I wonder if there's a precedent for something like this where Apple offers to rent each unit as it turns over, waiting it out until they eventually occupy 100% of the building? (They could, in turn, offer the apartments to employees as a perk or offset by salary so that it isn't a complete waste of money.) The problem is the apartment building owner knows what they're sitting on and has the upper hand here.
post #134 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by sergem View Post

http://postimage.org/image/1na3jcihw/

Norman and Steve couldn't help themselves.

Pentagon + Apple = Sign of the devil?
post #135 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I'm sure this project will be even more derided than the cube on the Fifth Avenue store. People will be talking about "Steve's spaceship" forever. But it is brilliant. I have to wonder whether the single round office building was Steve's idea or an architect's idea. And I sincerely hope that Steve is around and healthy to see it completed and opened.

Is the 5th Ave Cube derided? If it is and if this donutian mothership will be, I can't imagine SJ or anyone at Apple could give a flying frk. When the worlds most celebrated buildings were designed and built they weren't 'old', or retro, they were of the day. Many were ahead 'of their day'. Some people don't like modernity, and some people probably prefer the look of a Dell to a Mac. Whatcha gonna do \
post #136 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

None of which are arguments for why it cannot be used to augment your electricity source. It's not an either/or issue.

We just had panels installed on our residence in California and went through all the paperwork. I've also attended PG&E classes that cover all the incentives and regulations. California has one of the most generous feed-in tariffs for commercial installations, and the payback period now is under 15 years for all but the most extravagant systems.

I'm not suggesting Apple should build something that looks like hell for the sake of optimizing solar capture, but it would have been encouraging to see anything at all. If Apple had promoted some component of solar energy in their plans --even if it only contributes to a small fraction of their total load-- other companies building their headquarters might be inspired to do the same. We're well past the point where this should be some sort of 'experimental' effort.


No, it works right here and now. There are huge megawatt solar installations in Spain and in other countries that prioritize such things, and they are paying themselves back just like a gas or coal-fired power plant. If everyone waits 'another ten or twenty years' we might as well admit that we are incapable of making technological progress because we don't have the will to do so. Should Apple have waited longer to release the iPhone because conventional wisdom said such a product could never be done back in 2007?

You're confusing major solar installations that cost hundreds of millions to the low billions, that charge customers, to Apple's campus. Don't! Google is trying to be green, but their efforts aren't going to do much either. I don't want to see Apple spend tens of millions on solar that will contribute little to their needs.

Over time, we'll see if an installation like solar will pay off for a company the size of Apple. Homeowners are getting some pretty big tax breaks for something that otherwise wouldn't break even for them for twenty years, which is over the lifetime for such installations. The best power source right now is gas. If Apple finds solar to be useful in the coming years, maybe they will try that too. But the inefficiency is so low right now, on the order of 10 to 13%, that it's no more useful than a minor supplement for high density energy users. And even then, the costs are too high. What I'm seeing around the world are demonstration projects on buildings that don't add much to their energy efficiency, and those are mostly office buildings. Apple, as Steve pointed out, will have a high energy footprint because of the high computer usage.
post #137 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

...and some people probably prefer the look of a Dell to a Mac.

No! Please say it isn't so! Take that back! My world is crumbling...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #138 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I'm not really saying that though. The wrong architect or a bad architect on a particular project can be disastrous. I was mainly trying to say that it doesn't take a genius to come up with a square or a rectangle or a circle shaped structure.


It's harder than you think. Look at human buildings for the last 3 millennia how many are spheres, cubes, etc? Not many.

And let's just say for a moment that you're right that it doesn't take genius to come up with the idea. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because the process is way more involved. You have to remember that with any project involving a large organization, people at every level are going to want to add their own little touch or their personal idea or whatever. If there isn't someone with the vision and strength to see a project through to the end, then it's inevitably going to be mangled along the way.

Now that I think of it, it's funny that I make this point, because that's one of the main themes in The Fountainhead (which I referenced a few posts back).

Maybe it doesn't take a genius to come up with a square or a rectangle (or whatever), but maybe it takes a genius to actually get it built.

And finally, I think that it's ironic we're having this discussion, precisely because the genius of Apple is the seemingly effortless simplicity of their products that almost no one else has achieved (and certainly not to the magnitude that Apple has achieved).
post #139 of 304
Its kind of sad the level of discourse coming from Cupertino's elected officials. Obviously none of these people are particularly qualified to speak to the architecture or the urban planning surrounding this project.

The nearest any of them arrived at a meaningful inquiry was about the increase in traffic and they accepted Jobs's justification that 20% was a small increase to the existing site without recognizing how much an impact that will have. No one bothered to ask about transportation between Infinite Loop and the new Apple Spaceship. Instead they asked pedestrian questions like "can't we get free wi-fi?" Right. That's an important question.

The people of Cupertino should be ashamed of their elected officials.
post #140 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Steve *should* be embarrassed.

More to the point, the councilwoman who asked the question should be ashamed. This isn't the middle ages. The idea of "giving" something to the city council or the city in order to get a break on the building or to get approval is actually quite *illegal* despite it happening all the time.

I'm guessing you are naive enough, and young enough to perhaps just not know this, but Steve is 100% right (again). Bartering for planning approval or the "favour" of the council is illegal, wrong, and definitely unseemly. The council woman kind of laughed off his response almost to suggest that her request was itself supposed to be a joke, but you could tell she was semi-serious. I'm sure she didn't mean to be on tape asking for a gratuity (even though she basically is).

Well, actually, companies do bargain with governments all the time. They get special tax breaks, or are required to augment local facilities. Apple, here in NYC, has agreed to fix up local train stations, as has Citicorp, and others.

There's nothing illegal with this. If the city demands things that are beyond their scope, they won't get it.
These are "givebacks", and not only are they legal, they're common. Again, here in NYC, there are large buildings that wouldn't have been allowed to be built the way they are if they didn't build plaza's to allow sunlight to reach the streets, and give pedestrians more room to walk, and even sit.
post #141 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmac47 View Post

Its kind of sad the level of discourse coming from Cupertino's elected officials. Obviously none of these people are particularly qualified to speak to the architecture or the urban planning surrounding this project.

The nearest any of them arrived at a meaningful inquiry was about the increase in traffic and they accepted Jobs's justification that 20% was a small increase to the existing site without recognizing how much an impact that will have. No one bothered to ask about transportation between Infinite Loop and the new Apple Spaceship. Instead they asked pedestrian questions like "can't we get free wi-fi?" Right. That's an important question.

The people of Cupertino should be ashamed of their elected officials.

Yes, the council's questions were quite pedantic... but as Steve implied, he's lived there all his life and he wouldn't do anything to harm the area; that he has the best people in the world working on the project; and that he will work closely with Cupertino to ensure that things are done properly.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #142 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Other huge companies have failed and left their flagship corporate headquarters behind.

A mixed use center like GM's world headquarters with multiple companies, hotels, etc could continue on should GM leave it. Which GM reportedly was considering.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...-rattner-obama

It still would have been a huge body blow to Detroit but at least there are other tenants there.

A large cluster of office buildings like what exists in the HP park can be viably leased to a bunch of companies. If the total occupancy is only 25% these could be in the newest buildings while the less economically viable ones are demo'd and replace with something else.

With a large single building half the size of the pentagon (pentagon holds 23K employees)?

It's a valid concern for a Post-Jobs Apple. Apple went from sky's the limit in 1984 with Jobs showing the world the first Macintosh to free-falling in 1995 under Spindler.

Here's a reminder of corporate failures from that time period and I'd say the economic situation is worse than mid-90s.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/23/re...abandoned.html

You hope for the best but should plan for the worst. In this building you likely have to gauge the probability that a new single tenant would appear to occupy the building in the kind of environment which sees Apple leaving Cupertino for whatever reason.

I don't see this as a problem at all. If Apple did fail, or not need this after twenty years or so, then it could be sold, and divided up inside and leased, or rented. No big deal.
post #143 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

Fella, I've PUT people in public office. You have no idea who you're talking to.

With that out of the way, I agree this was mild opposition at worst. The council was more or less cowed. But get some perspective: The global economy is sinking. The market's about to crash (yes, again). Anyplace else on Earth would PAY Apple to locate in their community, and pay them well.

Yet Jobs felt compelled to remind these CLOWNS that his company pays taxes, because he's had problems with them before. Apple keeps Cupertino afloat, let's face it. It's not 'tongue in cheek' to ask for free Wi-Fi. It's stupid, tacky, and tasteless.

But hey, tick Jobs off with a 'cute' remark. He has billions of company dollars in the bank and the world at his feet. Go ahead, say something self-serving and stupid. No way he follows through on the veiled threat he felt it was necessary to make about Apple picking up and leaving, right? No way he's thinking about the years-long nightmare he was put through re his personal residence, right? And there's just no way he hears the clock ticking because he does not know if he'll live long enough to see this thing built.... right?

Sure, go ahead. Indulge yourself. Make your cutesy remark. What could happen?

Really? So, big shot, who did you put in office? Don't brag about something you won't go public with. I know NYC politics pretty well, and it's about as tough here as it is anywhere.
post #144 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Moscone Center is 2M square feet. Moscone West is obviously a smaller segment of that total space
but covers nearly a block and is three stories above ground.

The issue is that Apple doesn't need Moscone West 365 days a year but wants something bigger than that for a week. Whatever the size, it's unlikely that Apple has structured the 1M sq ft of floor space to be a multi-use conference center.

Something the city might like to have for economic stimulus and would be willing to trade tax revenue to get.

The space Apple rents has been described as small, and we can see that from the pictures we get of the WWDC. I don't know why he says they can't find a bigger place. There must be some reason.
post #145 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Over time, we'll see if an installation like solar will pay off for a company the size of Apple. Homeowners are getting some pretty big tax breaks for something that otherwise wouldn't break even for them for twenty years, which is over the lifetime for such installations.

And what I'm saying, firsthand from researching such things, is that those same tax breaks are available in CA for business as well. (And where do you get this 20-year lifetime figure? Some ongoing installations from the 70s are still operational, having long ago paid themselves back even without today's financial incentives.)

I'll say this again to clarify: I don't think Apple should attempt to build some sort of uber-ecological installation where people drink their own waste products in an effort to be 'green'. (Ok, I'm exaggerating here.) Simply supplementing their electricity with PV panels would be fine, and a big symbolic gesture to others that it is a viable technology. A lot of people look up to Apple for all sorts of things and that's what this would be.

And it's not wasted money. As I've said, with California's current solar incentives a system can pay itself back in under 15 years, and that's at today's electricity rates. After that, it's free goddam electricity! Whether it's only 50 panels or 5000, the same basic economics apply. Yes, Apple will still need alternative energy sources and a connection to the grid, but who doesn't want free electricity in fifteen years?

This is similar to Apple's strategic purchases of components as a hedge against production and cost variations, only applied to their real estate. It may not pay back tomorrow or next week, but once you make the investment it assures a certain future that you wouldn't have otherwise. The US needs this kind of thinking (rather than quarter-to-quarter profits for the sake of executive bonuses), and a company like Apple could be very helpful getting this message across.
post #146 of 304
The video cutoff about 2/3rds of the way through the presentation so I am not sure of everything that was said but I am thinking this was just the formal presentation for public consumption. The more significant issues will need to be dealt with in a more behind the scenes manner. I am thinking there are going to be reports on what this will do to traffic in the area and what kind of enhancements to the streets that will need to happen. Also, I am sure environmental reports on the impact of this having this campus and this many people added to the area. It will be interesting to see how quickly this thing will be approved and then how quickly they can get it built. With all those trees and landscaping, I am sure water usage/drainage will need to be addressed, especially with all the underground parking spaces that will be needed.

Beautiful building. I hope it will happen and happen soon.

Neal
post #147 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The space Apple rents has been described as small, and we can see that from the pictures we get of the WWDC. I don't know why he says they can't find a bigger place. There must be some reason.

Are you talking about the presentation or did I miss some other material? I couldn't find the segment where Steve says that they couldn't find a bigger place.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #148 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

Its possible that Apple would get a ton of traffic to a campus store. Think of the tourist etc. I'd stop by. The building alone will be a tourist magnet to get snap shots etc

Now whether Apple would want that... doubt it.
Plus, don't want those Google boys and girls snooping around.

I was thinking about a campus store. That could mitigate some of the cost structure, but maybe not, if they require extra security.

Actually, we don't know exactly what Apple is planning. If they can get the city to negate their liability for anyone who gets hurt in the park, the way it's done for most public facilities, then it's possible they may open portions up. But there still would be the security aspect for their own operations. And there would be the need for some security for people in the park, and what would the hours be?
post #149 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealg View Post

The video cutoff about 2/3rds of the way through the presentation so I am not sure of everything that was said but I am thinking this was just the formal presentation for public consumption.

Beautiful building. I hope it will happen and happen soon.

Neal

That's what I thought as well... for the public's consumption. The threat to move wasn't for council... it was for the public... "Don't interfere or we'll move and then see how well your public infrastructure projects fare over the next few years...".

I also hope it happens and soon.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #150 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Yes, the council's questions were quite pedantic... but as Steve implied, he's lived there all his life and he wouldn't do anything to harm the area; that he has the best people in the world working on the project; and that he will work closely with Cupertino to ensure that things are done properly.

And again, as we saw from the meeting, Apple's officials met with members of the council previously, possibly a number of times. And all cities have their own experts, or they hire private firms who do those assessments. No doubt all of this will be worked on.

Remember, this is just a preliminary meeting. The plans haven't yet been done, or submitted. The engineering and social aspects of this can't be properly assessed until plans are submitted. In fact, this hasn't even been approved yet!
post #151 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinDrift View Post

So Apple are building their own particle accelerator?

This is exactly what modern companies should be doing...

Do you own a modern company?
post #152 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmac47 View Post

The people of Cupertino should be ashamed of their elected officials.

Unfortunately, that's what local politics is like. People stick their necks out and run for office, some out of honest desire to improve their community and others motivated by ego and power, and the end result is usually a mixed bag of nuts. At the town level you'll see this anywhere (at least in the US), since few people take an active interest in this level of politics. And keep in mind that other than for Apple, Cupertino really isn't that big of a place. I bet their next-largest tax base comes from car dealerships.
post #153 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

And what I'm saying, firsthand from researching such things, is that those same tax breaks are available in CA for business as well. (And where do you get this 20-year lifetime figure? Some ongoing installations from the 70s are still operational, having long ago paid themselves back even without today's financial incentives.)

I'll say this again to clarify: I don't think Apple should attempt to build some sort of uber-ecological installation where people drink their own waste products in an effort to be 'green'. (Ok, I'm exaggerating here.) Simply supplementing their electricity with PV panels would be fine, and a big symbolic gesture to others that it is a viable technology. A lot of people look up to Apple for all sorts of things and that's what this would be.

And it's not wasted money. As I've said, with California's current solar incentives a system can pay itself back in under 15 years, and that's at today's electricity rates. After that, it's free goddam electricity! Whether it's only 50 panels or 5000, the same basic economics apply. Yes, Apple will still need alternative energy sources and a connection to the grid, but who doesn't want free electricity in fifteen years?

This is similar to Apple's strategic purchases of components as a hedge against production and cost variations, only applied to their real estate. It may not pay back tomorrow or next week, but once you make the investment it assures a certain future that you wouldn't have otherwise. The US needs this kind of thinking (rather than quarter-to-quarter profits for the sake of executive bonuses), and a company like Apple could be very helpful getting this message across.

I get that figure from the warrantees of most of the manufacturers of the cells. While they may last for a longer time, they may not. Hot water systems last for a shorter time.

A very good work on this which I often reference is this:

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05-09.pdf

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for environmental work. But I'm not so sure it really would pay for Apple right now, and I'm not big on symbolic gestures.
post #154 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Also, while I understand Steve's reluctance as the largest employer and taxpayer in Cupertino to give more (like the free WiFi, although wouldn't ubiquitous WiFi in Cupertino also help Apple?), would it really be such a big deal to open a store in Cupertino? Steve seemed insulted to even be asked. Even if it didn't make a lot of money, sometimes it's worth caving on a few issues. If a big store wouldn't make money, they can open a smaller, mall-type store. And even though Apple pays lots of taxes, there's nothing wrong with Apple also donating to the community. Barons of the past built universities, museums, libraries, parks, etc.

Steve Jobs is a very unusual billionaire. He has presided over a 50fold increase in the value of Apple, but his wealth is still primarily tied to Disney/Pixar - unlike the other IT billionaires he hasn't enriched himself at the expense of his shareholders. Check out the Forbes rich list sometime, it's kind of amazing how low he is on it given he's the CEO of the most successful firm in the industry.

So you can't really compare him to somebody like Andrew Carnegie who spent his working life entirely focused on the bottom line, and then gave away his fortune in essence to atone for it. Jobs doesn't feel that Apple is something he needs to apologize for, so I'm not surprised that he was unamused by the attempt to shake him down.
post #155 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Art is universal. When something is really beautiful it's really beautiful. You can have your own opinion all you want but it's just that: opinion.

I'm pretty sure your second sentence is opinion. Art may be universal (not sure what that really means), but I don't buy that any particular great piece of art is appreciated universally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Wind is fine, if you can convince communities to allow the very tall, ugly, and dangerous to birds towers, and likely wouldn't work well in that area.

Wind turbines are dangerous to birds only if they're not placed properly, which is a lot rarer now. From what I understand, it's a long-outdated axiom because the siting is done a lot better now, and there are deterrence mechanisms now. But I agree that it's probably not a good location, especially if you're extra sensitive about the skyline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

Fella, I've PUT people in public office. You have no idea who you're talking to.

Citation, please? You're right, we don't know who you are, but you've never said who you are either. And there's the problem of whether or not you really are who you say you are, verifiability on the internet is non-existent.

Quote:
No way he's thinking about the years-long nightmare he was put through re his personal residence, right?

I thought that had little to do with the council and more about lawsuits from other groups.
post #156 of 304
Did anyone catch the "one more thing" at the end?

Steve: "Oh, one more thing. The building doesn't just look like a spaceship. It IS a spaceship. Suck on that Elon!"

Seriously, it is a very nice looking campus. I wish more companies would pay that much attention to nature when they built.
post #157 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Are you talking about the presentation or did I miss some other material? I couldn't find the segment where Steve says that they couldn't find a bigger place.

He said that at the beginning of the WWDC, when he apologized to people for only having space for those there. He didn't say that here, exactly, though he did mention the WWDC, as I recall.
post #158 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by The-Steve View Post

Why is there no mention of solar collectors? For a building of this size, in an area with almost year-round sunshine?

It will power itself by violating the laws of thermodynamics. It's part of the StarDrive, which, while parked on Earth, is disguised as the underground power plant. Then the Earth is threatened by an impact event, the ark will lift up out of the ground and save the 12,000 chosen few, who will repopulate the planet, after Apples competitors have been wiped out.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #159 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

I'll say this again to clarify: I don't think Apple should attempt to build some sort of uber-ecological installation where people drink their own waste products in an effort to be 'green'. (Ok, I'm exaggerating here.) Simply supplementing their electricity with PV panels would be fine, and a big symbolic gesture to others that it is a viable technology. A lot of people look up to Apple for all sorts of things and that's what this would be.

Heh, interestingly I take the exact opposite view. I think they absolutely should invest in an incredible building, something that sets very high standards for energy efficiency at the same time as setting high standards for temperature comfort, lighting, and yes beauty. Part of the reason that they should is to demonstrate that they can do so profitably, in the same way that they dmonstrate that they can create beautiful products profitably and we don't have to be satisfied with drek.

Greenwashing by applying a few PV panels is exactly what they shouldn't be encouraged to do. It's the equivalent of microsoft applying a few graphical bells to an abomination of an application and calling it 'Visual'.

This building may well represent Jobs last opportunity to fundamentally shape Apple's future, and I expect he'll pull out all the stops to make it beautiful, elegant and efficient - because those are qualities he clearly admires in their own right.
post #160 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post




Wind turbines are dangerous to birds only if they're not placed properly, which is a lot rarer now. From what I understand, it's a long-outdated axiom because the siting is done a lot better now, and there are deterrence

Actually, that still one of the concerns. While it's not the worst problem for birds, anything that makes the situation worse needs to be looked into.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple planning massive 12,000 capacity "spaceship" campus in Cupertino