Classic sprawl architecture. Stuff like this kills our planet. It is resource inefficient to the extreme.
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 conditioning?though 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.
The obvious better plan is to build in a smaller footprint near where people already live, or near a major transportation hub. Before the auto companies put the streetcar companies out of business, locations like that used to be called "downtown". People didn't used to have to travel on congested freeways several times a day. They had a much more holistic and integrated life, instead of separating it into "work" and "my life", each of which separated by a long interlude of diesel fumes.
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?
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.
What a great solution.
(I'm not against urban density, but it can be taken too far.)
Bull. This is classic sprawl architecture. It uses WAY too much land compared to other styles of building.
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.
Quote:
Howsabout a smaller footprint and more open space?
30% smaller building footprint. 90% less surface parking area.
Quote:
Howsabout building big, giant skyscrapers (which include office, residential and retail?)
This is Cupertino, not Dubai.
Quote:
next to major transportation hubs?
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.
Quote:
Howsabout trying to eliminate car trips and huge parking lots?
Apple can't control people's behavior (at least not now?maybe 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.
Quote:
Suburban sprawl is horrible for the environment.
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.
Quote:
And Apple's architects too often aim for a "look at me" style rather than integrating into the built (or natural) environment. The retail stores stick out like sore thumbs, with featureless glass plopped down in neighborhoods of detailed masonry.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
It's in California, a lot of commies and liberals live there. They were looking for free handouts.
Didn't Google give everyone in Mountain View free WiFi? It's not totally out of the question to request it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
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.
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.
Didn't Google give everyone in Mountain View free WiFi? It's not totally out of the question to request it.
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.
Comments
Classic sprawl architecture. Stuff like this kills our planet. It is resource inefficient to the extreme.
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 conditioning?though 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.
The obvious better plan is to build in a smaller footprint near where people already live, or near a major transportation hub. Before the auto companies put the streetcar companies out of business, locations like that used to be called "downtown". People didn't used to have to travel on congested freeways several times a day. They had a much more holistic and integrated life, instead of separating it into "work" and "my life", each of which separated by a long interlude of diesel fumes.
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?
Apple can't dictate where there employees live
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.
Worked for Jonathan Ive.
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?
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.
What a great solution.
(I'm not against urban density, but it can be taken too far.)
Bull. This is classic sprawl architecture. It uses WAY too much land compared to other styles of building.
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.
Howsabout a smaller footprint and more open space?
30% smaller building footprint. 90% less surface parking area.
Howsabout building big, giant skyscrapers (which include office, residential and retail?)
This is Cupertino, not Dubai.
next to major transportation hubs?
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.
Howsabout trying to eliminate car trips and huge parking lots?
Apple can't control people's behavior (at least not now?maybe 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.
Suburban sprawl is horrible for the environment.
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.
And Apple's architects too often aim for a "look at me" style rather than integrating into the built (or natural) environment. The retail stores stick out like sore thumbs, with featureless glass plopped down in neighborhoods of detailed masonry.
Sorry, but I think different.
You certainly do.
He lives in San Francisco, not Cupertino.
40 miles away in comparison to England.
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.
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.
The retail stores stick out like sore thumbs, with featureless glass plopped down in neighborhoods of detailed masonry.
OW, MY THUMB!
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.
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.
40 miles away in comparison to England.
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.
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.
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.
It's in California, a lot of commies and liberals live there. They were looking for free handouts.
[;1878225' It is rather simplistic though in it's geometric shape, it's simply a circle with a hole in the middle of it.
That would make it a ring........
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.
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.
Didn't Google give everyone in Mountain View free WiFi? It's not totally out of the question to request it.
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.
That would make it a ring........
...which would Rule Them All.