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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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(?)
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(?)