Apple planning massive 12,000 capacity "spaceship" campus in Cupertino - Page 5

Yes, it's a concern, which is why the environmental impact surveys cover that issue thoroughly before going on with the project. Because of that, the problem is now far less significant than people seem to give credit.

The entire building is one huge symbolic gesture!!

Think about it; a corporate headquarter really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy building with windows and a parking lot. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree.

Apple has chosen to spend their well-earned money on an expensive, stylistic edifice for the sake of telling the world that they are successful. I have no problem with that. They may also attract more talent as a result (although at this point I suspect people would still line up to work at Apple even if it was located in an underground bunker). But they are also making a permanent statement to the world (and the Cupertino government) that they value certain details over others, including the replanting of trees that they have no legal obligation to do and to include certain 'green' architecture elements (Jobs even said it explicitly).

My only complaint here is they didn't include (or at least mention) some element of solar electrical generation*. Not necessarily because it would make a huge impact on their operating costs, but because it would tell other would-be Apples that it's an appropriate thing to do. I might be wrong - maybe there are panels located elsewhere on campus and Jobs didn't bring it up. (And then your argument will be invalidated here.) In any case, any new construction that goes up in this day and age that doesn't attempt to capture the free energy raining down on the roof is, in my opinion, a huge lost opportunity that borders on the criminal. I fly over new housing developments that are only a year old that could be generating megawatts of electricity that instead sap the electric grid, add to our overall pollution, and enrich companies that have far less social conscience than Apple or any other tech company that people look up to.

Google, meanwhile, is offsetting 30% of their electricity use at the 'Plex.


Edit: *And the solar panels do not have to be on the Big Donut - they could be elsewhere on the campus, such as along the perimeter or the support buildings. And maybe that is indeed in the works, but this presentation didn't mention it.

Partical accelerator was my first thought too...

While this is a beautiful building it's worth noting that while the aerial view showing the courtyard makes it look all green to humans standing on the ground outside it's still going to look pretty massive.

I love jobs comment about taxes and muni wifi.

True - though glass façades have been known to cause duck deaths (and worse) without needing wind turbines. (In)Famously giving rise to the following (Ig) Nobel winning paper

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20874742/H...in-the-Mallard

I mean when adding something that gives an impression of being green, but which isn't making much difference. I don't know how much Google is getting from their installations. Is there an independent report that they didn't pay for?

I'm not saying that Apple hasn't put any solar up, just that if they don't feel it's going to do them much good, then they shouldn't. If they feel it will, then they should. I'm not against it.

There are SO many problems. Domestic cats are, or were, the worst predator of domestic songbirds. But try to convince most cat owners who allow their cats out, to stop doing that, or to spay them so they won't breed outside, is another matter.

But we have to start somewhere.

I'm not sure I totally agree with that. First of all, I frequently work at Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, a company in San Francisco that has a very similar problem to Apple's. We have too many employees with too little space, so people are forced to work in different buildings. And honestly, it's a pain in the ass when you have to go from one to another. So having people consolidated is pretty obviously relevant.



Secondly, are you honestly trying to argue that working in some crappy box of a building is the same as working in a well designed one?? That's like saying the only difference between the Mac and Windows is that the mac is glitzier. Let me use your words:


"Think about it; [an operating system] really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy [piece of software] with windows and a [file system]. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree."

or

"Think about it; [a computer] really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy [device] with [a monitor] and a [keyboard]. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree."



As has been frequently mentioned, the Pixar building was designed to allow people to easily interact with each other. This will be similar. In fact, I think it's very reasonable to believe that this building will be the architectural embodiment of the Apple philosophy! And if that doesn't make sense to you, I'm not even sure why you read this site! lol

I don't know about it being his last -- he's clearly got a lot of years ahead of him -- but your main point is the right way to think of this project, I think. It's mainly meant as an inspirational center for conjuring up the products of the future by their employees.

As a tourist attraction or a PR driven eco-showcase of any kind, not so much. Or even as a hangout for the community. That would be so un-Apple, and even un-California, I might add.

They may well feel that they don't want or need visitors, that's what the stores are for. And if you do any public access around the freeways there, you would be asking for traffic trouble. It's not like Rockefeller Center, it other words. California doesn't do public space in every neighborhood, and there's no public transit to speak of.

I apppreciate your posts in this thread, by the way.

Edit: Afterthought -- of course they will build in the most efficiencies that they can, and make that part of the mental atmosphere. Jobs and colleagues aren't power wasters, and wouldn't be happy working in a conventional air-conditioned nightmare of a building.

Wow, that paper was not at all what I was expecting, lol!

Steve was joking
Apple already is set for free WIFI FOR THE WHOLE CITY .

BESIDES BEING A HUGE TAX BREAK
ITS A BIG BONUS FOR APPLE TO SUPPORT THEIR HOME CITY

and its all green wow

9

Hopefully someone doesn't jailbreak it.

I'll agree with this, as many companies/architects throw the term 'green' around so much it loses meaning. (And even LEED certification can be gamed in ways that undermine the original intent.) Unfortunately solar generation often gets thrown into this game and people don't know whether it's an honest effort or not. That's the point I'm trying to work against.

From an engineering point of view, PV makes infinite sense: convert the sunlight that is hitting your roof for free into electricity, which you need. As part of the bargain, on flat roofs solar panels even shade the surface that you would otherwise pay to insulate and cool internally from the heat transfer. (You would obviously insulate the roof for other reasons, but in the summer the heat load from the sun wouldn't be as great if they're shaded by panels.)

From an economic point of view the answer, as always, is "it depends". If you live in a cloudy climate your solar harvest will obviously be lower (although not zero). If your construction costs are high, such as on the top of a 60-story building, or an unfavorable roof pitch, that's a strike against. If the panels and inverters are too expensive, as they were in the past, your payback period extends out. But in Silicon Valley most of these concerns are no longer significant concerns. There are few places in the US more appropriate for solar installations than the sunny regions of California.

The reason I go on about this is it's one of the few topics I think need to be discussed, and more importantly, taken back from those who try to confuse the issue for who-knows-what agenda. Jimmy Carter had panels installed on the White House, and then Reagan had them removed. They were already bought and installed! This is sound economic policy? If people have hesitations against installing solar panels on new construction (setting aside the more complicated retrofit applications) it's probably because of the perpetuated myth that PV is still uneconomical. Either that, or they simply cannot handle a 15-year investment (and yet many will happily gamble their retirement funds on volatile stock offerings). This perception needs to change.

Not at all. You're misconstruing my example.

I hate crappy office buildings. But once you start to add flourishes you are making decisions on what is important to employees/visitors/competitors/community and you should choose wisely. Go re-read what I wrote.

Really? I thought they were embarrasingly fawning over him. The one guy whipped out his iPad 2. Geez. They should have some sense of dignity for the elected office they hold and the voters/taxpayers they are responsible too.

Now I think the building is gorgeous and a great Steve Jobs legacy. But that meeting was just painful to watch. I was embarrassed for them. I mean asking for free wifi (without even a specific context...a la Google in Mountain View) and an Apple Store, instead of questions about how the larger building will impact traffic (there was just a quick question about that) or more specific demands on the water, sewage and power grids. No concerns about say re-routing Tantau avenue (why or why didn't they?)?

And Apple just proposed building a natural gas plant down the street from a residential neighbourhood. Not a peep about that. Instead the councillors attacked another employer in town.

They didn't even ask why Apple didn't think of incorporating more solar power....I would've considered that an obvious question.

@ Dlux

I find your ramblings, concerns, and this thread in general very interesting... however... considering that,

1. Al Gore is a member of Apple's board,
2. within the assorted buildings and walls at Apple are some of the most ecologically concerned citizens in CA, and probably the most intelligent combined workforce anywhere on Earth,
3. that it is a well known fact that SJ is a devout Buddhist and environmentally harmonious to the bone,

... I would think, and actually put my net worth on stake here, that they have collectively created close to the perfect "green" headquarters at it's proposed size.

Naturally a cost/benefit analysis has been made, and again, I would bet that any measure that was even close to costing more than the benefit if it was ecologically the right thing to do... it was included in the plans.

PS: apart from the obvious "One Infinity Loop" being at it's simplest form, a circle... my first thought was the "toggle wheel" from the iPod... which actually was Apple's saving tech product, that they have built upon... to essentially be able to build this future landmark in the first place.

Well said. And I like Dlux's line of inquiry as well.

I don't think that's the case - a perfect 'green' headquarters would probably look a lot different. I think they prioritized instead on style (certainly not cost; curved windows are the antithesis of that idea.) And again I have no problem with that. I've stated that I'm no fan of bland architecture.

I'm simply lamenting (probably too much at this point) that there was no mention of PV generation. Had Jobs thrown that into his presentation, even if it was relegated to secondary buildings, I think that would have sent a positive message to all that are following this.

At some point in the future solar generation won't be a luxury, or even a borderline economic exercise. It will be a necessity. There are simply too many new buildings going up for our current electric grid, and those liquid dinosaurs won't last forever. And as panel/inverter prices continue to drop it won't even be an issue - people will install PV panels just like they install insulation in the walls. They'll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. But we need to get there, and every example that gets set by those who lead public sentiment is an important step along the way.

Waste heat can also be used to drive chillers for air conditioning.

Eventually the free wifi for Cupertino will take care of itself when Apple expands it's ringed mothership to swallow the entire city of Cupertino. Since everyone will live and work witin the borders of Apple, the wifi will be complementary.

Say what now?

It's only illegal if you are bartering with councillors for their individual benefit. A city council insisting on concessions for public benefit from a builder is perfectly legal and acceptable and is common practice not just in the US but everywhere else too.

I just love the irony of that.

(Similar to natural gas-powered refrigerators.)

You think weed smells lovely? It smells like someone set a skunk on fire. This is the only reason I am opposed to legalization - pot smells BAD.

I call straw man, or at least false dichotomy, maybe false correlation too. A box doesn't necessarily mean it's crappily engineered, a taurus in itself doesn't mean well-engineered.


Not really an irony, just applied engineering.

It only smells bad until you actually smoke it...

Right. I've never done that so . . . it still stinks to me.

I only read the account when I posted that. It's been pointed out to me since that they were pretty milquetoast, and that's probably true (I've since seen the video).

Your points re exactly how they embarrassed themselves are well-taken. Then again, it's been my experience that very, very few elected officials are worth a damn. So while I agree with you there, I'm a whole lot less surprised than you are.

It's typical for our elected officials to be style over substance. In this case, they were in no position to say 'no' to Jobs (if Apple left, bye-bye Cupertino - not to mention bye-bye next election for that council). But their braying egos still demanded an outlet, hence the unwise and ill-informed remarks about WiFi.

Why were these 'WiFi' remarks spectacularly ill-informed, badly timed, and foolish? Because this is how Apple feels about free public WiFi (and the photo was posted today, on this very site):

http://photos.appleinsider.com/IMG_1269.jpg

Your public representatives at work, as it were.

I fully understand the engineering, but that doesn't mean it still isn't ironic.


(Anecdote: When I lived in Boston the temperature got to well-below freezing one day. I had to drive out in a car with what turned out to be poorly-mixed antifreeze to buy some dry ice for a project. On the way back the engine overheated.

What had happened was the coolant froze so it didn't circulate, so the only thing available for the now-warm engine was what had thawed in the cylinder head. That in turn heated up and sent the temperature gage into the red zone. Meanwhile, I was freezing inside the car since the heater didn't work, while the dry ice I was carrying was thawing (ok, sublimating). That's irony.)

Can you please re-scale that? It's filling two screen-fulls in my browser.

You conveniently forgot that i mentioned "of this size".

Also, I guess I'd have to agree that it might look different, but again, you have to take into consideration that this is Apple, and an SJ and Jonny Ives led company when it comes to aesthetics. It still has to be "beautiful, amazing" and dare I say, "magical".

I just finished watching the presentation, and yes, SJ is unfortunately struggling a bit. Pain-killers?

Last but not least, the presentation was rather short, and I'm sure we'll be in for a whole lot of awesome when those finished plans are (ever) made public, or at least their main "talking points". Get ready for SJ to throw some green-weed "Let-Us" show you how it's done, at assorted environmental groups that are ever on his case about something or other.

PS:... and Al Gore will make serious "hay" with this as well... not so sure I like that though.

Again you appear to have mixed up aims and means. Solar power is a means, it is not an aim in itself. It is entirely possible that it will be a big part of our energy mix in 50 years time. It is a entirely possible it won't.

If we manage to achieve climate neutral energy generation without much solar then that's just as good as climate neutral generation that is based on vast solar furnace farms in deserts. Note I say climate neutral not carbon neutral - because GigaWatt level solar generation would certainly introduce additional radiative forcing, resulting in at least localized climate change. Applied widely across a city, PV would increase the Urban Heat Island effect.

Nothing is without impact, so stop getting narrow focused on solar and consider the big picture.

Only to those that don't know what's going on. At a fundamental level, it is using energy to move energy. In short, the opposite of irony, because when presented that way, you expect that to happen. In fact, probably every means of refrigeration requires the production heat somewhere, what's different in those cases is the apparent proximity, or the lack of it.

PV converts some of the sunlight into electricity, rather than heat absorbed into the roofing material. Solar panels actually cool the area, although one would be hard-pressed to measure the difference. Also, as mentioned before, the panels shade the underlying roof, which will reduce the A/C load for the building itself.


Fine. If you can advocate a more economical renewable on-site generating source I'm all ears. In the meantime let's stick to what's been proven to work.

I think you're taking things way too literally.

Using waste heat to run the chillers to offset waste heat is indeed ironic.

I couldn't help but think of Apple's success during the past decade+ and how it is now coming to fruition.

Bravo on buying land and building a worthwhile piece of architecture that will be marveled at in the future. We live in an age where most people don't invest time or money into projects on a scale larger than our own lifetimes...instead we see convenience stores and strip malls.

How else are we to take engineering problems other than "literally"? Metaphorically? Poetically?

There's no "irony" in designing a system as efficiently as possible. Any more than it would be "ironic" to use treated waste water in a sewage treatment plant as part of treatment process.

Yikes. No they don't. Solar panels are dark, very dark, compared to a regular roof they will absorb a larger amount of solar radiation and reradiate it in the thermal bands. This is directly analogous to the
feedback effect that we see from loss of ice-cap and glaciers.

The amount of energy that they absorb is say 20% and will besides be converted into heat by resistive heating at some point in the circuit - but that's not relevant. It's the albedo that counts, as most of the other 4/5 th will become heat. Google 'photo voltaic radiative forcing' - I'm sure you'll find something but I really can't be bothered looking as I understand thermodynamics.

Is the radiative forcing worse than burning coal? Obviously not, but that doesn't meant it doesn't exist. Add in the considerable energy & fresh water cost of creating PV panels, the potential for increased domestic cooling requirements if you are increasing the heat levels in built up areas. PV Solar isn't magic, it has downsides beyond the exorbitant price/watt and they are glossed over because it's so depressing to think that there is no perfect solution.


Again you're presupposing the solution. It may not be optimal to generate renewable power on-site, it may be more sensible to build energy efficient buildings and use grid power or generate power on site from biofuels or hydrogen. It may be better to skip the overpriced PV panels and build sinkholes for heat dumping during the day. Primary generation may end up being nuclear fusion, fast breeder thorium cycle fission, tidal, offshore wind or natural gas with carbon sequestration or something else that I don't know about. There are lots of possible ways which we could reach a sustainable energy supply.

One thing to keep in mind is that architects don't design mechanical systems for buildings. That is left to building construction engineers, mechanical engineers, civil engineers and the like. They all work together to achieve the end result that fits within the esthetic and physical parameters set by the architect. There is no doubt that the energy performance of this building will be very high. Once buildings get above a certain size energy management becomes complex and very computerized. I work in a building that knows the outdoor temperature, the position of the sun, the season, the carbon dioxide and monoxide levels, humidity levels and my shoe size. It uses all this to control the HVAC and fresh air systems to the highest efficiency possible. Is is safe to assume the Apple torus will do all that and more.

Plus this beast is half the size of the Pentagon which is the biggest office building in the world. Wow.

Ok, let me just this clearly.

It wasn't about developing or developed country. It wasn't being powerful or not. And it is not the law . First, It is about Apple. We all come here to talk in forum because we have something for Apple right? Whether that is hate or love.

If i am head of the council, I wouldn't even want to trigger a religious rebel if i say "No" to Apple. Of coz i have the right / power to do so. But saying no doesn't bring any good to me, my city, Apple, or fellow citizens. Of coz, that is nothing really wrong with its plan first.

Now that i watched the Video, it was more of a Joke rather then an actual questions. It was like i need to say something, now what should i say situation.

Now on a MUCH MORE IMPORTANT thing. No one mentions SJ looks much thinner then previous public appearance?

Poetically, there you go.

Having lived with Servel gas refrigerators for many years, I can testify that it is a beautiful thing to see that 4-inch long, one-inch thick flame making cold for your shelves of groceries inside the box. With no moving parts, and for 50 years without breakdown, except on very hot days if you don"t keep the fins clean. Better, put a little fan on top of the fins to circulate the air.

I have always believed that the same thing could be done with solar heat capture. Must be going on somewhere in these inventive times, eh?

Likely because he doesn't.