Apple planning massive 12,000 capacity "spaceship" campus in Cupertino - Page 7

Apple already gives Cupertino free advertising: "Made in Cupertino." I know they were in good spirits, but do they really need to ask for more free stuff?

Any idea what powers the campus? Arc reactor?

Fully agree. Energy efficiency. It all comes down to how much energy is being wasted vs. the resources needed to create new energy and subsidizing it.


Geez! As you can see I'm normally a fan of your posts... but this time you totally misread and misunderstood mdriftmeyer I think. Considering the meanderings of this thread, I do believe he (she) is 100% on-topic... albeit with a slightly political slant. Although, politics (local) are a topic as well.

So... take a deep breath... and read my sig-line... which you might remember as being your own advice once upon a time.

A quantum singularity with the power of the Big Bang will power the Apple campus. There is a small risk of catastrophic inflation, which is where the singularity expands into its own universe, destroying the better part of ours in the process. However, that's the price you pay for clean energy.

So if skyscrapers are a phallic symbol of a hubristic pissing contest .... then Apple's new building looks very much like one of Freud's "feminine symbols"

hmm...

Yeah, I didn't think of that but I'd have to go along with it. More fem than masculine, that's for sure. Bring it on, says I.

That reminds me of a theory of the origin of the word "donut." This was published in the journal of Barry Fell's Epigraphic Society many years ago. The patron goddess of the Phoenicians was Tanit, and her symbol incorporated a torso in the shape of a fat circle, along with a delta skirt, upraised arms, and a crescent moon above her head. Or was her head the circle? (Anybody?) Cakes in that torus shape were called "tanits" in ancient times, so went the theory. I'll look it up if anybody's interested.

Where are you coming from? Making a call like this?
Just because solar has not been mentioned (at this early stage) seems to mean for you there won't be solar on this project.

I think he's actually coming from tomorrow, the other side of the dateline, so he doesn't get the drift of the discourse ahead of his posting, if that makes sense.

This thread is so long, I can't go back and find his later qualifiers. We all know they're going to try to build the most efficient building possible, having thought about it for awhile.

Geez man, gush much?? </kidding> Seriouslyit's no mere coincidence that, under Steve's leadership, Apple went from being $1 billion in the red to being at the top of the industry a little over a decade later. Few companies, if any, can boast this kind of turnaround success story.

I've heard and read that Steve is a very difficult person to work with and for because it's basically his waynot even "or the highway"full-stop. Though I think he's softened a bit in the past few years. Still, Steve's singular vision (plus the executive team, of course) and his overbearing nature result in products that I think every Apple employee is proud to put their name on at the end of the day.

I think for those lucky enough to work at Apple, it will be pretty cool to walk up to Apple's new arc reactor*/donut/spaceship every morning.

* Steve did say they were going to generate their own power!

A few more comments/observations:

1) Apple has their own bus fleet? Awesome! Bus service plus cycling commuters means that Apple won't have to build parking for all 12,000 employees.

2) "People in glass houses (or office buildings) shouldn't throw stones." This new glass torus will give new meaning to that aphorism. Heh.

3) I'll be interested to know what the final cost will be. I'm sure Apple won't pinch pennies in its design or construction phase, so it'll easily run into the hundreds of millionspossibly even $1 billion? Whatever the price, it'll be worth every penny.

4) Earthquake proofing? I'll be interested to know how they will earthquake-proof all that glass. Glass by its nature is not very flexible, and hence, does not respond well to major earthquakes.

5) Whoa! The interior of the space ship is large enough to fit the main buildings of the original campus!

6) It would appear that Apple has been a good corporate citizen and member of the Cupertino community. It's nice to see them banter back and forth in a friendly manner. Not to say that the whole project is guaranteed to go smoothly. There are always hiccups, stresses, debates, disagreements, etc. But if this meeting is any indication, this project is off to a good start.

Robre, How do you know it *will* have solar? It seems like if it was planned the presentation would likely have included it.

Geez, what I've been saying if you've actually read all my posts is that this whole concept from Steve and Apple is pretty impressive overall.

It's just that at this stage what we know of it does not automatically make it the best green building out there in the world, which some posters agree. Just because it's designed by Apple.

Yes Apple will do the best they can but let's be realistic, it may not be *the very best green building in the world*.

Various posters are thinking about different aspects... Why no mention of solar? Any more details on the gas turbine technology? Some people have raised concerns about the glass, etc.

I was also just mentioning that the city council had some pretty silly questions. They could have asked something like, what about solar energy? You know, being in the commie liberal land of California (sarcasm). That's a legitimate question, and Steve probably would have had a good answer, which unfortunately we never got a chance to hear because they were too busy asking for free WiFi and showing off their iPads.

Of course I understand this was a limited public presentation and a lot more details will be forthcoming over the next several years.

As with some other posters I also raised a question about earthquake-proofing which was something else the city councillors could have asked about, instead of just the guy asking about "so it's going to be safety [sic] right?" or something like that.

AFAIK almost all Apple products now state "Designed in California, Assembled in China".

As I said, I'm in favor of PV, in theory. But each install has to show that it's going to be an advantage over other systems.

In Apple's case, generating their own power locally, using gas, has already cheapened their costs, long term, so that addition of PV may not be economical, and may even raise their costs, long term. The question is what savings will they get by doing what they're planning? PV is only economical when compared to the high rates we pay today. Drop those rates by 20% or so, and PV needs subsidies to compare, as it has throughout its history.

It's difficult to find good information on this as most of it is biased in one way or the other. This is one of the best links I have:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/63019.pdf

After all, the savings are there, sometimes, when compared to the rates otherwise charged by the power companies. If Apple costs are lower, as they seem to believe they will be, then they've already done what they could to lower them.

That's right. And what's being ignored is that that landscaping brings down the local temperature as well, when compared to the urban construction we see there now. It also helps to absorb pollution, as trees have been shown to do that as well. This is at least as important as the discussion of the energy sources being used.

Well, no, I really can't believe that trees would be set on fire. I'm sure we would have read something about that if it happened. The light being reflected is reflected almost randomly, across a 180 degree field. But that field is pointing in the direction of the surface. It's so diffuse that is not a danger unless something was right in front of it, and even then, it's not likely.

I didn't say that he specifically said that they would hold the WWDC there, just that he did mention the WWDC as an example of a conference, which is what he did. We were speculating as to whether they could, and would do so, which is what we do here. An extrapolation from his mention is perfectly ok to do.

It doesn't have to be the greenest. The larger the building, and the more complex the facilities, the more difficult to maintain. I don't think we can really doubt that Apple will try to make this as green as possible, as that will be cheaper in the long run. But we all know how it is. The last 20% consumes 80% of the cost and effort. It may no pay.

As for earthquake proofing. There are laws and regulations as to that. A lower building will be easier to protect. Glass isn't always a problem.

I just watched the video. Did not read the entire thread, but here's some comments.

Steve is a MASTER presenter and salesman. He took on the folksy, humble, local boy-done-good persona with that council and worked it. His "aww shucks, I remember working for HP" story was emotion manipulating gold!

The question "what does the city get out of this?" was kind of a good one, but the Wi-Fi and iPads comments were petty and pitiable. Were the councilmen looking for a bribe!? Steve's I'll take my multi-billion dollar corporation and go pay taxes somewhere else answer was masterfully passive-aggressive.

Some questions I have and I think the council should have asked:
Who gets access to all that new green land? Will there be public parks? The Board of Directors' private hunting reserve?

Traffic. Steve dodged this question, but it seems traffic flow in and out of the campus will be a big issue for the city to deal with. I wonder if Apple will have a monorail? Steve mentioned people biking to work. Will the city need/be expected to put in more bike supporting infrastructure?

I think the eminent domain issue with the apartment buildings that wouldn't sell to Apple is a good point. Yes, it is a terrible, dangerous use of government power, but it has been happening across the country - cities condemn land and give it to people who can pay more taxes. A Supreme Court ruling a few years ago made this clearly legal. Apple could apply a little leverage to the council and get them to force the apartments to be sold to Apple with little effort I think.

Power. Geothermal? (Not for generation, but for efficiency.) If they're going to strip the whole property and build up, they can embed long pipes all over the place. See the construction pictures of Disneyworld. You dig down, put in infrastructure, and build the facade on top.

I think fire hazard is a good concern. That part of the world regularly goes up in flames during the summer. Adding open space covered with dried grass is "green" but when someone flicks a cigarette butt onto it and sets the campus on fire, who deals with that? What's Apple's fire suppression plan?

Gah! Those councilmen came off as such dopes compared to Steve. Apple's proposing a who knows how many millions or billion dollar campus and they ask about getting an Apple Store!?

Good luck to Apple. I hope this does turn out to be a Disney-esque construction project. And Steve certainly has access to Disney's imagineer resources.

- Jasen.

No smoking on Apple's campus.


Thousands of these.

Agreed. US politicians like to whine and whinge about public transportation and high-speed rail. But to do that effectively you need massive concentrations of destinations near the stops. I visited Hong Kong once and was amazed at the HUGE apartment buildings and office buildings. With a population density like that, you can pull off mass transit. The USA's custom of everyone wanting a postage stamp of land to call their own spreads the population too thin for mass transit to work.

- Jasen.

Are you looking at the same building? Did you watch the video? The way that property is now, only 20% consists of trees/landscaping. When Apple's done, 80% of the land will be trees/landscaping. Apple plans on having 2,300 more trees than are already there (6,000 total, compared with 3,700 there presently). Building footprint will actually be reduced by 30%.

Having a glass structure, with proper ventilation will actually be pretty efficient, because very few lights will have to be used during the day. If you'll notice in the images, each level of the building is skirted by sunshades all the way around, which will reduce the need for air conditioningthough certainly in the summer months, even a sunshade will not be enough. It will have a lot less thermal mass than a concrete building.

I could go on, but I have a sense that you're just looking for stuff to complain about.

Um. Apple can't dictate where there employees live, and they can't just build anywhere. They're building here because they bought this land. Building many small campuses near where employees may live is far less efficient and far more harmful to the environment than building a central campus. Also, in the video, Steve said that Apple has 20 biodiesel/fuel powered buses to transport employees. It would be interesting to know how many employees use those buses and how many bike to work compared with how many drive their own cars and how many carpool. I know some companies that actually give employees incentives/bonuses if they commute by bicycle instead of by car. I wonder if Apple does that too?

Worked for Jonathan Ive.

Of course Apple can tell its employees where to live. Either move with the company or you don't work with them anymore. Not just Apple.

He lives in San Francisco, not Cupertino.

Or are you saying that Apple demanded he stay on Planet Earth in order to work for them?

What a great solution.


(I'm not against urban density, but it can be taken too far.)

Did you see that whole open area in the middle of the "spaceship" full of TREES?? I'm not sure what you mean by "sprawl architecture". The "before" images look like "sprawl" to me. The "after" image looks like "giving a lot back to nature, except for the arc reactor, the parking structure to the south and a few buildings to the east.

30% smaller building footprint. 90% less surface parking area.

This is Cupertino, not Dubai.

I would guess that that big ol' highway on the south side of the campus carries a lot of public bus transportation. I don't know if Cupertino has a rail system or not.

Apple can't control people's behavior (at least not nowmaybe when Mac OS XI rolls around), but by providing their own bus service, encouraging employees who commute by bicycle, and by moving their parking structure underground (thus eliminating its thermal impact on the environment), it seems to me that Apple's doing a pretty good job at addressing a lot of environmental issues.

Agreed. Suburban sprawl was there before Apple came along, and based on the images in the presentation, it looks like Apple is doing what it can to try and fix some of that.

You certainly do.

40 miles away in comparison to England.

I meant, Apple can't dictate where in town they can live. Apple can't demand that employees live within walking distance of their campus.

OW, MY THUMB!

heh - the covent garden store is even nicer - fantastic use of natural light.



there's no point engaging with this joseph guy though - he's complaining about them not fitting in architecturally then demanding that they build skyscrapers in Cupertino. Completely cuckoo.

HAHAHA! Excellent point. Sigh.

I think the original point was in regards to planning Apple's campus in Cupertino, and how they should account for transportation. So no, Apple does not dictate where employees live in that regard.

I would hope they seek LEED certification both to boost Apple's image and to set an example for the industry to follow. I know LEED can be gamed and such. But that's not the point. Apple could set a great example for tech firms everywhere.

The Bay Area is rife with examples of suburban sprawl, but the proposed Apple building isn't one of them. Apple isn't doing what so many tech companies in the Silicon Vally have done and are doing and gobbling up open space. This is a developed site, in a heavily developed area.

And while I generally agree with the idea of concentrating development around transport hubs, that works best with mixed use projects. Apple already has a large number of employees in the area with homes. Expecting them to move into some kind of company housing so they can walk to work is a bit unrealistic.

And, again, it's not like this is some kind of giant housing development up Highway 80 on former open hillside, putting that many more cars on the road commuting to and from San Francisco (which is what we're really talking about when we talk about sprawl). It's a single employer, low destiny building on a developed site which will draw its commuters from all around and at varied times.

Since you put communists and liberals in the same category instead of the people saving this country from the mess caused by 8 years of Bush...

Over the last twenty years the left has moved to the center, and the right has moved into a mental institution. The Republican Party is now a bunch of religious lunatics, flat-earthers, and Civil War reenactors.

Chew on that.

That would make it a ring........

Didn't Google give everyone in Mountain View free WiFi? It's not totally out of the question to request it.

Google's business is stealing your information, browsing data, and preferences and using that to pump ads in your face. It makes sense for them to do that.

Apple couldn't care less about any of that.

Yes they did, but there is arguably a difference. Google is an internet based company, every $ it makes is by somebody somewhere clicking on something, so by giving people free networking it increases the use of its services directly. Google would like nothing more than for there to be free wifi everywhere, and google could conceivably end up marketing a free wifi solution to municipalities.

Apple is a consumer electronics firm. It's like asking a bank to provide free local laundry facilities. Sure their employees and customers may use laundries, but it's really nothing to do with them.

...which would Rule Them All.

Brilliant presentation, though it was a dog and pony show to introduce the project to Cupertino. The real battles usually occur behind close doors with the owner's team and the municipality's staff.

The City should be only concerned with how the project impacts services provided by the City and how it impacts the "neighborhood".

Services include transportation and the council should have inquired more, perhaps starting with, "how can we work together to best minimize traffic during peak times that would benefit both Apple and Cupertino?" When are the peak times? Where are the site access points? Are people going to be traveling between the two campuses and when? Would they consider light rail between the two campuses? (This could be the impetus to declare eminent domain against the apartment complex.)

How are emergency vehicles going to have access to the entire building.

No mention of water management strategies -- I presume another impact on city services.

If I recall, Mr. Jobs stated they will have their own generators, but still use the grid. If he did actually say they may use the grid, the city should have asked him under what scenarios. They should have asked where the generators are going, and if close to the property lines, then to provide noise abatement.

The "green" items mentioned likely were the ones that best describe how the project is going to improve and have a positive impact on the "neighborhood." I am sure there are others.

This is not the "greenest" building in the world, but like with any building project, there are trade-offs. This building would be more environmentally efficient if it had a smaller footprint, making it more vertical. At 4 to 5 stories, with my guess of 15 to 16 feet floor to floor heights, it is still a tall building that is not as human scale as a two-story building. As some discussed, the trees will not provide shade to the upper floors. However, a large percentage of the workers are going to have natural daylight and tremendous views. (The downside is the ultraclear glass Mr. Jobs likes is much more of a bird killer than a wind turbine.)

In my opinion, this will be an excellent office building, but not the best. My favorite is the John Deere administration building, that is one of the few buildings in the world that looks better at nearly 50 years old then when it was new. The beauty of the Apple building will not be from looking at the building, but looking from the building. The interior courtyard office views and much of the exterior views of the landscaped areas are going to be wonderful when the vegetation matures. The Apple building will look spectacular from a hot air balloon as demonstrated in the renderings. At eye level, there is much work to be done. Though "God is in the details", there needs to be context of place. It is a huge building that could be hugely boring at the pedestrian level if there are huge distances between what appears to be 4 nodal points. There is no playfulness nor rhythm of materials. Perhaps they should have more nodal points. Perhaps have offsetting circles where in relationship to the overhangs, the glazing is recessed on the south sides and more flush on the north in order -- allowing for glass shading where it is needed most.

My guess is the interior is going to have the longest corridors in the world. And they may never end! The horizontal spread may be a challenge where is looks like a walk between two points could be more than a 1/2 mile.

I don't think we can make many definitive judgement about the building's eye level impact at this point. Like all minimalist design, the devil is in the details. With the right materials and construction techniques, a long unbroken arch in a wooded setting might be quite striking.


Again, no way of knowing at this point, but I would think that there would be a number of doors around the inner perimeter, so that you're never much off a straight line from any other place in the building-- which actually is the most efficient possible layout for minimizing the distance between every point.