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 3

post #81 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by APPLEBIRD View Post

It's fokes like you that want us to return to the Stone Age :-(

Huh? I was just saying, if the council wanted to push Apple a little further, they could... Solar panels are just a possibility. There are many cutting-edge "green buildings" around the world now. I'm wondering what an objective evaluation of the Apple campus would be. Isn't there supposed to be standardised ratings and all that? I'm not asking you to power your computer by a bicycle and compost your poop.

The city council looked like it just wanted to make sure Apple wasn't going anywhere and that they got their free iPads and their own Apple Store (so they didn't have to drive, what, 10 minutes down the road to the nearest one?)... in the video anyways. I'm not saying they don't do important work otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's got a built in battery. Fail.

post #82 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

All the city council clowns could think of was to ask "where's our cut?". Apple should move to Mountain View, sell off the land, and let the remaining Cupertino residents drag the council's pathetic corpses through the streets. I'm pretty sure Mountain View's (or almost any city's) leaders would show a lot more appreciation for what Apple brings to the table.

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.
post #83 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cascadians View Post

Steve Jobs is an utter hero. It obviously took a monumental expenditure of precious energy to make that presentation and he's doing it for Apple's future. He was gracious, fiercely intelligent as always, and stuck to his guns and made his points well. The city cannot help but try to pick up freebies but Steve isn't having that, and does it with humor and no-argue force.

Apple is beyond fortunate to have such a founder who is willing to put himself out there on Apple's behalf when any other person at this point would be resting at home. I pray for Steve every day and thank God for every time I have been blessed to see him in action. A rare Titan of a man. His courage and perseverance are outstanding. Witness a legend.

The "freebies" they wanted didn't even make sense! Wire the whole city with free WiFi just because Apple is building a new campus? Give everyone an iPad? Maybe if for a school programme, yes... That would have been more of a "contribute back to the community" kind of thing.

But thank you for noticing as well that Steve put a lot of effort into this, he clearly did not have to do it himself.
post #84 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?

If Apple splurg on thin film solar panels, they don't need stand alone solar collectors.
post #85 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Yes, I don't think Apple should have carte blanche to do what they want just because it's already so stunning... Maybe the real questions the city council as well as the state should be asking is what about solar? There are many new office buildings around the world being built that are already "greener" than this. Yes, architect students will come to see it but it's not really an epitome of a green building.

Building that use solar around the world don't house nearly as many people as this one will, and don't use nearly as much power. Solar is very inefficient, and terribly expensive at this time. It's also unreliable, and requires vast backup for evenings, and times when the sun isn't shining throughout the clouds and rain.

At this point in time, gas is the most "green" power source that's reliable, efficient, and clean. 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.

We have to succumb to the fact that technology isn't where we would like it to be yet. Perhaps in ten to twenty years, it will be different.
post #86 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.

An idea of the top of my head, was to have some of that campus as a public space for discussions, courses and so on. Maybe like an educational building that had various courses on software development, and like for classroom field trips as well.

Maybe they could ask for some of that green area to be a public park, but it's private land, so I don't think that's quite possible?

Like I said, I don't know the regulatory processes, these are just some ideas besides "free WiFi", on how the building the campus could benefit the community.
post #87 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.)

There is glass that takes care of this, in addition to double and triple panes with inert gas or vacuum. There are thin plastic sheets that prevent over 80 of ultraviolet and infra red penetration also. This isn't a problem these days. And then there will be shade trees, from what we can see from the drawings. This building is just four stories tall, so that will be doable.
post #88 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Building that use solar around the world don't house nearly as many people as this one will, and don't use nearly as much power. Solar is very inefficient, and terribly expensive at this time. It's also unreliable, and requires vast backup for evenings, and times when the sun isn't shining throughout the clouds and rain.

At this point in time, gas is the most "green" power source that's reliable, efficient, and clean. 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.

We have to succumb to the fact that technology isn't where we would like it to be yet. Perhaps in ten to twenty years, it will be different.

I admit, solar is one or two generations from really being kickass. It's so close, though. Really close. Just a few more generations, and it would really be such a great renewable source of energy.

Wind turbines are definitely out of the question for the SF Bay Area. Aesthetically, it would never fly (pun unintended). Let alone endangering wildlife and so on.

How come gas is cheaper than grid electricity? Can anyone shed light on that? Because if so, why wouldn't more companies be using that?
post #89 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec View Post

I don’t understand the questions of residents’ gains and free WiFi? Sorry I am not American.

I read some of your comment and I still don’t understand. Please Lighten up on things.

Do the “council” have the power to say no? And why would they say no?

I didn’t watch the video yet. I hope it was a joke. It seems Jobs was threatening them who is in charge, who is more powerful and who pays their salary.

No one threatened anyone. Apple needs to go before the local governments for permission to modify, or build. This is normal, and represents the needs of a company, vs the needs, and zoning requirements of each community. The same thing happens around the world. The company presents a general idea of what it wants to do, and the commission, or whatever group the local government has, listens, and voices any objections it may have. The company must meet local laws as to population density, traffic disruption, sewage and water requirements, etc. Then, as noted, they must meet local, state and federal laws for safety, and possible evacuation. It's very complex.

This was a very friendly meeting. And as you can see, Apple met with several council members several tines before this meeting when getting their plans together, for the purpose of making sure what they want to do would meet with basic requirements, including esthetic ones. By the time this meeting was set up for Jobs to present, it was a done deal, and this was just a formality.
post #90 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

An idea of the top of my head, was to have some of that campus as a public space for discussions, courses and so on. Maybe like an educational building that had various courses on software development, and like for classroom field trips as well.

Maybe they could ask for some of that green area to be a public park, but it's private land, so I don't think that's quite possible?

Like I said, I don't know the regulatory processes, these are just some ideas besides "free WiFi", on how the building the campus could benefit the community.

I would not be surprised if Apple had much of what you want. But there is a matter of liability for Apple to use the land as park space for those not employed by Apple, so that's not a generally usable idea. When there is a very small property surrounding a building, often the public can use it, but this is too large, and then, Apple would have to be concerned with security. I don't know how they could deal with that.
post #91 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Perhaps if you had training in architecture, or at least grade 6 math, you would know the difference between a sphere and a cylinder.

what brought on that toddler insult? your mommy not love you enough?
post #92 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I admit, solar is one or two generations from really being kickass. It's so close, though. Really close. Just a few more generations, and it would really be such a great renewable source of energy.

Wind turbines are definitely out of the question for the SF Bay Area. Aesthetically, it would never fly (pun unintended). Let alone endangering wildlife and so on.

How come gas is cheaper than grid electricity? Can anyone shed light on that? Because if so, why wouldn't more companies be using that?

Electricity from the grid is more expensive, because it's not a prime source of energy. Much of the cost is involved in delivery, and management of the grid. Apple wouldn't have as many problems with gas, even if they must pipe in large quantities.

And vast supplies of gas have been found in the USA the past few years, so that we are now one of the worlds largest holders of gas reserves. It's estimated that we now have the second largest gas reserves after Russia. And they're finding more.
post #93 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

You're right, I don't have any training in architecture, as that is not my field. And you're also right that I did mix up sphere with cylinder, and the store in China is of course a cylinder.

i applaud you for even replying to that coarse idiot.
post #94 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

How come gas is cheaper than grid electricity? Can anyone shed light on that? Because if so, why wouldn't more companies be using that?

Ok - there are a couple of reasons. First local gas turbines can be used as part of a combined heat+electricity system. Providing hot water for all the bathrooms, showers, gym laundry etc. There are actually home units that do this now that are the size of a washing machine.

Second modern gas turbines are amazingly efficient, often as efficient as the remote power station if it's an old station.

Third transmission capacity, California has very high power demands and buys in a lot of power from out of state, this means a lot of money has to be spent to build expensive transmission systems.

Fourth transmission efficiency, by producing the power directly where it is needed the transmission losses become negligable - in fact Apple will probably be able to sell excess generation onto the grid profitably most of the time - at least once Cupertino's grid is upgraded to allow such things.

The end result is that unless their grid electricity is from a local hydro dam a big firm like Apple or Google will invariably find it cheaper to generate their own using gas turbines. Especially as they would need the generation capacity anyway for backup, so there's no capital saving for them in using the grid.
post #95 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.

Me, I'd have asked if their proposed conference center could hold WWDC and if not if they'd be willing to make it bigger in exchange for some tax breaks specifically on revenue for that structure if leased for other users when not being used by Apple. They're missing all those HP jobs so they probably need to figure out some other ways of stimulating their tax base other than seeing Apple grow.

Maybe on the parcel south of 280. Along with the Apple Store the guy wanted and maybe a little Apple museum. A little Apple mecca for all the apple fanbois. Maybe a nice hotel there as well.

I probably would have asked about light rail access if none exists to that complex to relieve I-280 traffic and maybe discuss a staged work day so there isn't 13,000 people trying to all get in there between 8-9AM.

I'd have asked about public access to the exterior green space.

My other concern if I were on that council would be should Apple fail WTH you do with a huge monolithic building? That maze of office buildings can be leased out individually with excess mothballed or demo'd but I doubt the 12K building would be viable at 25% occupancy.

Free WiFi? Not so much.
post #96 of 304
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.
post #97 of 304
This brought to mind the scene in Beverly Hills Cop where Eddie tells the contractor that he is building the house all wrong. "There is a new set of plans. There aren't supposed to be any corners!"
post #98 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google been evaluating Bloom boxes for a couple of years now, their first real customer IIRC. While they can supply some of the needs for customers like Google or FedX, they're not yet anywhere near ready to replace traditional power sources for a project of this size, especially economically. With Apple nearly always focused on the bottom line, I don't see them making this kind of upfront investment that may never result in any cost savings.

Google has like a cluster of 4 units. eBay has 5 boxes supplying 15% of their power needs. And that's with 1st gen units without recapturing waste heat. Current efficiency is around 45%...only a tad higher than other competing industrial fuel cells. If they can recycle the waste heat and regenerate fuel they can drive that efficiency up to 70%.

Looking at the Apple plans they have a fairly large space allocated (building sized). Far more than 5-6 units. They can use a mixture of bloom boxes and conventional gas turbine but I suspect that they're far more likely to use Bloom boxes and add heat recapturing technology to drive efficiencies up.

Given that this complex isn't going up tomorrow my guess would be that they've looked at expected improvements in on-site energy generation (whether fuel cells or gas turbine) and concluded that by the time the facility goes live there will be 1-2 more generations of improvement. As long as the tax credits continue the likelihood is that it will be economically viable in that context AND it provides guaranteed power...a valuable consideration given California's grid and the probability that California will go nuke free because of Fukushima.

That'll put a 4,000 MW hole in their power generation capability.

As for solar, there may be some thin-film solar around the complex but it can't provide the energy density required.
post #99 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Me, I'd have asked if their proposed conference center could hold WWDC and if not if they'd be willing to make it bigger in exchange for some tax breaks specifically on revenue for that structure if leased for other users when not being used by Apple. They're missing all those HP jobs so they probably need to figure out some other ways of stimulating their tax base other than seeing Apple grow.

Maybe on the parcel south of 280. Along with the Apple Store the guy wanted and maybe a little Apple museum. A little Apple mecca for all the apple fanbois. Maybe a nice hotel there as well.

I probably would have asked about light rail access if none exists to that complex to relieve I-280 traffic and maybe discuss a staged work day so there isn't 13,000 people trying to all get in there between 8-9AM.

I'd have asked about public access to the exterior green space.

My other concern if I were on that council would be should Apple fail WTH you do with a huge monolithic building? That maze of office buildings can be leased out individually with excess mothballed or demo'd but I doubt the 12K building would be viable at 25% occupancy.

Free WiFi? Not so much.

I don't understand some of your questions. Some are not within their purview, and others have no doubt been addressed in the meetings that were done before this meeting, which is really just for the public to look at what's being asked for, and to lodge any objections. All the work on solving those problems were either done already, or will be worked out in the plans that will be submitted, which you will have noticed, are not yet ready.

In another post, I mentioned a number of those problems which either have been worked out, or will need to be worked out. Some of them will be needed to be done by the city, as they are not something a company can do, though they can help with logistics, and even with money, which no doubt has been factored into the budgerigar, or will be.

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.

I don't understand your "other concern" at all.
post #100 of 304
Did this remind anyone else of the building at the end of the Fountainhead?... Anyone? lol
post #101 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

The owner of that apartment complex has just realized he owns some if the most valuable apartment buildings in California. He was smart by not selling. The only bad part for now will be the deafening construction noise while they are contructing that huge building.

Will be a work of art when it's done!


Yeah, definitely a smart move. The owner might just be holding out for more money(?)
post #102 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There is glass that takes care of this, in addition to double and triple panes with inert gas or vacuum. There are thin plastic sheets that prevent over 80 of ultraviolet and infra red penetration also. This isn't a problem these days. And then there will be shade trees, from what we can see from the drawings. This building is just four stories tall, so that will be doable.

The render all seems to show overhang to provide shade...as in the glass is set back into the structure quite a ways. You'll get more direct winter sun but less summer sun because of the angle.

There's an artist rendition at the 5:32 and 7:11 point.
post #103 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Fine Line View Post

Yeah, definitely a smart move. The owner might just be holding out for more money(?)

This thing will take years to build...I'd hate to be a tenant there.
post #104 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Since Apple said that they grow like a weed, they should eliminate all of the trees in the middle of the spaceship and grow weed there instead. It could be the world's finest weed garden, and the Apple campus would smell lovely and it would also serve as a relaxing park, unlike no others. Steve Jobs doesn't like smoking, so each office would have a personal Volcano installed. Of course, this idea wouldn't be 100% legal just yet, so perhaps in the future sometime.


Haha, maybe they should try to follow the example of the Vatican and create their own sovereign city-state. Then they could create their own laws! lol
post #105 of 304
http://postimage.org/image/1na3jcihw/

Norman and Steve couldn't help themselves.
post #106 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Me, I'd have asked if their proposed conference center could hold WWDC and if not if they'd be willing to make it bigger in exchange for some tax breaks specifically on revenue for that structure if leased for other users when not being used by Apple.

If you watched the presentation you'll have noticed that there was concern about how much additional transport stress the building would create (answer not much). Making a 5000 person conference center and having it used for any serious proportion of the time would require MASSIVE transport infrastructure improvements.

Quote:
I probably would have asked about light rail access if none exists to that complex to relieve I-280 traffic and maybe discuss a staged work day so there isn't 13,000 people trying to all get in there between 8-9AM.

Light rail access from where? Cupertino itself doesn't have any light rail. There's nothing to connect to.

Quote:
My other concern if I were on that council would be should Apple fail WTH you do with a huge monolithic building? That maze of office buildings can be leased out individually with excess mothballed or demo'd but I doubt the 12K building would be viable at 25% occupancy.

Most very large office buildings have multiple tenants, it's not that big a problem. Often even buildings with notionally a single occupant such as the pentagon are so thoroughly subdivided that they may as well be multiple occupant. A firm like Apple that works so hard to maintain its secrets will definitely have plenty of internal subdivisions.
post #107 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by halhiker View Post

And the apartment complex in the corner is not for sale?

Can you say eminent domain for Cupertino's largest taxpayer?

Eminent Domain is a rule that only a government can enforce, and can only enforce for the benefit of "the people" not a corporation. Most of the time that it's actually used, it's a quasi-fascist kind of government that's doing the enforcing.

Do you really want to be living in a world where a corporation can pay a government to force it's citizens to move out of the corporation's way? Granted some place like China are like this, but the majority of the world at least gives lip service to democracy and the sanctity of the home.
post #108 of 304
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.
post #109 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

If you watched the presentation you'll have noticed that there was concern about how much additional transport stress the building would create (answer not much). Making a 5000 person conference center and having it used for any serious proportion of the time would require MASSIVE transport infrastructure improvements.

He said in the presentation that the proposed conference centre would be large enough to hold WWDC... or at least that is what I heard. He said that he'd like to hold conferences there instead of having to hold them in San Francisco as they did the other day.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #110 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by blimp View Post

NEWSFLASH: Steve Jobs reveals to council that Apple just loves Windows

You have to admit, it's quite a Vista.
post #111 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Google has like a cluster of 4 units. eBay has 5 boxes supplying 15% of their power needs. And that's with 1st gen units without recapturing waste heat. Current efficiency is around 45%...only a tad higher than other competing industrial fuel cells. If they can recycle the waste heat and regenerate fuel they can drive that efficiency up to 70%.

Looking at the Apple plans they have a fairly large space allocated (building sized). Far more than 5-6 units. They can use a mixture of bloom boxes and conventional gas turbine but I suspect that they're far more likely to use Bloom boxes and add heat recapturing technology to drive efficiencies up.

Given that this complex isn't going up tomorrow my guess would be that they've looked at expected improvements in on-site energy generation (whether fuel cells or gas turbine) and concluded that by the time the facility goes live there will be 1-2 more generations of improvement. As long as the tax credits continue the likelihood is that it will be economically viable in that context AND it provides guaranteed power...a valuable consideration given California's grid and the probability that California will go nuke free because of Fukushima.

That'll put a 4,000 MW hole in their power generation capability.

As for solar, there may be some thin-film solar around the complex but it can't provide the energy density required.

The way the building is shaped and with all the glass, the rooftop garden in the middle, etc. ... I would doubt that this thing will need much power at all.

It certainly looks like a passive heating/cooling design and far more energy efficient than the average building. It seems unlikely they will have to pay to heat it, or ventilate it, or clean the air. We are just talking electric lights and computers mostly.
post #112 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Eminent Domain is a rule that only a government can enforce, and can only enforce for the benefit of "the people" not a corporation. Most of the time that it's actually used, it's a quasi-fascist kind of government that's doing the enforcing.

Do you really want to be living in a world where a corporation can pay a government to force it's citizens to move out of the corporation's way? Granted some place like China are like this, but the majority of the world at least gives lip service to democracy and the sanctity of the home.

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.
post #113 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Building that use solar around the world don't house nearly as many people as this one will, and don't use nearly as much power. Solar is very inefficient, and terribly expensive at this time. It's also unreliable, and requires vast backup for evenings, and times when the sun isn't shining throughout the clouds and rain.

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.

Quote:
We have to succumb to the fact that technology isn't where we would like it to be yet. Perhaps in ten to twenty years, it will be different.

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?
post #114 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

... 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. ...

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).
post #115 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.

Indeed it is, Kelo vs New London gave states the right to do just that, but there was huge popular disgust with the ruling and as a result many states passed laws against it.

(from wiki)

Subsequently, Proposition 99 passed in the June 2008 election. It amends the [California] state constitution to prohibit (subject to some exceptions):
"state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence [if the owner has occupied the residence for at least one year], as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity."

So even if Steve had wanted to be evil, and even if Cupertino had wanted to let him, California Law wouldn't.
post #116 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.

Does anyone on the forum actually know what Steve meant by saying natural gas and "other means"? Maybe solar is included in these plans to augment the nat gas power source. Just saying...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #117 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.

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.
post #118 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The render all seems to show overhang to provide shade...as in the glass is set back into the structure quite a ways. You'll get more direct winter sun but less summer sun because of the angle.

There's an artist rendition at the 5:32 and 7:11 point.

Being that the sun can appear low over the horizon, that looks to be a partial solution, just being effective during the mid day. But every design decision helps.
post #119 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Does anyone on the forum actually know what Steve meant by saying natural gas and "other means"? Maybe solar is included in these plans to augment the nat gas power source. Just saying...

Apple has learned how to tap the power of photosynthesis to provide electricity. As photosynthesis is 99% efficient in its conversion of energy, the many, MANY trees at the new campus can afford a little hit on power to serve Apple's needs.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #120 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Eminent Domain is a rule that only a government can enforce, and can only enforce for the benefit of "the people" not a corporation. Most of the time that it's actually used, it's a quasi-fascist kind of government that's doing the enforcing.

Do you really want to be living in a world where a corporation can pay a government to force it's citizens to move out of the corporation's way? Granted some place like China are like this, but the majority of the world at least gives lip service to democracy and the sanctity of the home.

Just to clarify a bit, only if the corporation is for essentially 'private' use... if that makes sense.
Remember the big ta-do from the supreme court few years ago? Allowed a mall(ie developers) to use ED to get land. Ruling was because the mall would be for 'public use'.
See this all time really. Economic recover zones and the like.

All depends on who's getting gored if they like ED or not I guess.

In this case... doubt Apple could claim the land/facitliies 'primary' purpose is to be used by the public. Unless... as others have mentioned they make a public park or open public education classes etc. Or they could have claimed that they needed that land for the power plants, and plants would a majority of time feed power back to the grid. But that would take years and public fights etc... look how long it took to get his house permit!
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
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