The entire building is one huge symbolic gesture!!
Think about it; a corporate headquarter really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy building with windows and a parking lot. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree.
Apple has chosen to spend their well-earned money on an expensive, stylistic edifice for the sake of telling the world that they are successful. I have no problem with that. They may also attract more talent as a result (although at this point I suspect people would still line up to work at Apple even if it was located in an underground bunker). But they are also making a permanent statement to the world (and the Cupertino government) that they value certain details over others, including the replanting of trees that they have no legal obligation to do and to include certain 'green' architecture elements (Jobs even said it explicitly).
My only complaint here is they didn't include (or at least mention) some element of solar electrical generation*. Not necessarily because it would make a huge impact on their operating costs, but because it would tell other would-be Apples that it's an appropriate thing to do. I might be wrong - maybe there are panels located elsewhere on campus and Jobs didn't bring it up. (And then your argument will be invalidated here.) In any case, any new construction that goes up in this day and age that doesn't attempt to capture the free energy raining down on the roof is, in my opinion, a huge lost opportunity that borders on the criminal. I fly over new housing developments that are only a year old that could be generating megawatts of electricity that instead sap the electric grid, add to our overall pollution, and enrich companies that have far less social conscience than Apple or any other tech company that people look up to.
Google, meanwhile, is offsetting 30% of their electricity use at the 'Plex.
Edit: *And the solar panels do not have to be on the Big Donut - they could be elsewhere on the campus, such as along the perimeter or the support buildings. And maybe that is indeed in the works, but this presentation didn't mention it.
So Apple are building their own particle accelerator?
The concept looks spectacular. I really love how Apple are trying to return so much of the surface land back to its indigenous state. The building really looks like it's sharing the land with nature rather than dominating it.
This is exactly what modern companies should be doing with their new buildings.
Partical accelerator was my first thought too...
While this is a beautiful building it's worth noting that while the aerial view showing the courtyard makes it look all green to humans standing on the ground outside it's still going to look pretty massive.
Actually, that still one of the concerns. While it's not the worst problem for birds, anything that makes the situation worse needs to be looked into.
True - though glass façades have been known to cause duck deaths (and worse) without needing wind turbines. (In)Famously giving rise to the following (Ig) Nobel winning paper
The entire building is one huge symbolic gesture!!
Think about it; a corporate headquarter really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy building with windows and a parking lot. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree.
Apple has chosen to spend their well-earned money on an expensive, stylistic edifice for the sake of telling the world that they are successful. I have no problem with that. They may also attract more talent as a result (although at this point I suspect people would still line up to work at Apple even if it was located in an underground bunker). But they are also making a permanent statement to the world (and the Cupertino government) that they value certain details over others, including the replanting of trees that they have no legal obligation to do and to include certain 'green' architecture elements (Jobs even said it explicitly).
My only complaint here is they didn't include (or at least mention) some element of solar electrical generation*. Not necessarily because it would make a huge impact on their operating costs, but because it would tell other would-be Apples that it's an appropriate thing to do. I might be wrong - maybe there are panels located elsewhere on campus and Jobs didn't bring it up. (And then your argument will be invalidated here.) In any case, any new construction that goes up in this day and age that doesn't attempt to capture the free energy raining down on the roof is, in my opinion, a huge lost opportunity that borders on the criminal. I fly over new housing developments that are only a year old that could be generating megawatts of electricity that instead sap the electric grid, add to our overall pollution, and enrich companies that have far less social conscience than Apple or any other tech company that people look up to.
Google, meanwhile, is offsetting 30% of their electricity use at the 'Plex.
Edit: *And the solar panels do not have to be on the Big Donut - they could be elsewhere on the campus, such as along the perimeter or the support buildings. And maybe that is indeed in the works, but this presentation didn't mention it.
I mean when adding something that gives an impression of being green, but which isn't making much difference. I don't know how much Google is getting from their installations. Is there an independent report that they didn't pay for?
I'm not saying that Apple hasn't put any solar up, just that if they don't feel it's going to do them much good, then they shouldn't. If they feel it will, then they should. I'm not against it.
True - though glass façades have been known to cause duck deaths (and worse) without needing wind turbines. (In)Famously giving rise to the following (Ig) Nobel winning paper
There are SO many problems. Domestic cats are, or were, the worst predator of domestic songbirds. But try to convince most cat owners who allow their cats out, to stop doing that, or to spay them so they won't breed outside, is another matter.
The entire building is one huge symbolic gesture!!
Think about it; a corporate headquarter really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy building with windows and a parking lot. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree.
Apple has chosen to spend their well-earned money on an expensive, stylistic edifice for the sake of telling the world that they are successful. I have no problem with that.
I'm not sure I totally agree with that. First of all, I frequently work at Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, a company in San Francisco that has a very similar problem to Apple's. We have too many employees with too little space, so people are forced to work in different buildings. And honestly, it's a pain in the ass when you have to go from one to another. So having people consolidated is pretty obviously relevant.
Secondly, are you honestly trying to argue that working in some crappy box of a building is the same as working in a well designed one?? That's like saying the only difference between the Mac and Windows is that the mac is glitzier. Let me use your words:
"Think about it; [an operating system] really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy [piece of software] with windows and a [file system]. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree."
or
"Think about it; [a computer] really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy [device] with [a monitor] and a [keyboard]. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree."
As has been frequently mentioned, the Pixar building was designed to allow people to easily interact with each other. This will be similar. In fact, I think it's very reasonable to believe that this building will be the architectural embodiment of the Apple philosophy! And if that doesn't make sense to you, I'm not even sure why you read this site! lol
Heh, interestingly I take the exact opposite view. I think they absolutely should invest in an incredible building, something that sets very high standards for energy efficiency at the same time as setting high standards for temperature comfort, lighting, and yes beauty. Part of the reason that they should is to demonstrate that they can do so profitably, in the same way that they dmonstrate that they can create beautiful products profitably and we don't have to be satisfied with drek.
Greenwashing by applying a few PV panels is exactly what they shouldn't be encouraged to do. It's the equivalent of microsoft applying a few graphical bells to an abomination of an application and calling it 'Visual'.
This building may well represent Jobs last opportunity to fundamentally shape Apple's future, and I expect he'll pull out all the stops to make it beautiful, elegant and efficient - because those are qualities he clearly admires in their own right.
I don't know about it being his last -- he's clearly got a lot of years ahead of him -- but your main point is the right way to think of this project, I think. It's mainly meant as an inspirational center for conjuring up the products of the future by their employees.
As a tourist attraction or a PR driven eco-showcase of any kind, not so much. Or even as a hangout for the community. That would be so un-Apple, and even un-California, I might add.
They may well feel that they don't want or need visitors, that's what the stores are for. And if you do any public access around the freeways there, you would be asking for traffic trouble. It's not like Rockefeller Center, it other words. California doesn't do public space in every neighborhood, and there's no public transit to speak of.
I apppreciate your posts in this thread, by the way.
Edit: Afterthought -- of course they will build in the most efficiencies that they can, and make that part of the mental atmosphere. Jobs and colleagues aren't power wasters, and wouldn't be happy working in a conventional air-conditioned nightmare of a building.
True - though glass façades have been known to cause duck deaths (and worse) without needing wind turbines. (In)Famously giving rise to the following (Ig) Nobel winning paper
At the Cupertino City Council, they ought to treat him like Jesus. He just proposed an environmental improvement, a sensitive architecture landmark and 12,000 jobs?!
Steve was joking
Apple already is set for free WIFI FOR THE WHOLE CITY .
BESIDES BEING A HUGE TAX BREAK
ITS A BIG BONUS FOR APPLE TO SUPPORT THEIR HOME CITY
I mean when adding something that gives an impression of being green, but which isn't making much difference.
I'll agree with this, as many companies/architects throw the term 'green' around so much it loses meaning. (And even LEED certification can be gamed in ways that undermine the original intent.) Unfortunately solar generation often gets thrown into this game and people don't know whether it's an honest effort or not. That's the point I'm trying to work against.
From an engineering point of view, PV makes infinite sense: convert the sunlight that is hitting your roof for free into electricity, which you need. As part of the bargain, on flat roofs solar panels even shade the surface that you would otherwise pay to insulate and cool internally from the heat transfer. (You would obviously insulate the roof for other reasons, but in the summer the heat load from the sun wouldn't be as great if they're shaded by panels.)
From an economic point of view the answer, as always, is "it depends". If you live in a cloudy climate your solar harvest will obviously be lower (although not zero). If your construction costs are high, such as on the top of a 60-story building, or an unfavorable roof pitch, that's a strike against. If the panels and inverters are too expensive, as they were in the past, your payback period extends out. But in Silicon Valley most of these concerns are no longer significant concerns. There are few places in the US more appropriate for solar installations than the sunny regions of California.
The reason I go on about this is it's one of the few topics I think need to be discussed, and more importantly, taken back from those who try to confuse the issue for who-knows-what agenda. Jimmy Carter had panels installed on the White House, and then Reagan had them removed. They were already bought and installed! This is sound economic policy? If people have hesitations against installing solar panels on new construction (setting aside the more complicated retrofit applications) it's probably because of the perpetuated myth that PV is still uneconomical. Either that, or they simply cannot handle a 15-year investment (and yet many will happily gamble their retirement funds on volatile stock offerings). This perception needs to change.
Secondly, are you honestly trying to argue that working in some crappy box of a building is the same as working in a well designed one??
Not at all. You're misconstruing my example.
I hate crappy office buildings. But once you start to add flourishes you are making decisions on what is important to employees/visitors/competitors/community and you should choose wisely. Go re-read what I wrote.
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.
Really? I thought they were embarrasingly fawning over him. The one guy whipped out his iPad 2. Geez. They should have some sense of dignity for the elected office they hold and the voters/taxpayers they are responsible too.
Now I think the building is gorgeous and a great Steve Jobs legacy. But that meeting was just painful to watch. I was embarrassed for them. I mean asking for free wifi (without even a specific context...a la Google in Mountain View) and an Apple Store, instead of questions about how the larger building will impact traffic (there was just a quick question about that) or more specific demands on the water, sewage and power grids. No concerns about say re-routing Tantau avenue (why or why didn't they?)?
And Apple just proposed building a natural gas plant down the street from a residential neighbourhood. Not a peep about that. Instead the councillors attacked another employer in town.
They didn't even ask why Apple didn't think of incorporating more solar power....I would've considered that an obvious question.
I find your ramblings, concerns, and this thread in general very interesting... however... considering that,
Al Gore is a member of Apple's board,
within the assorted buildings and walls at Apple are some of the most ecologically concerned citizens in CA, and probably the most intelligent combined workforce anywhere on Earth,
that it is a well known fact that SJ is a devout Buddhist and environmentally harmonious to the bone,
... I would think, and actually put my net worth on stake here, that they have collectively created close to the perfect "green" headquarters at it's proposed size.
Naturally a cost/benefit analysis has been made, and again, I would bet that any measure that was even close to costing more than the benefit if it was ecologically the right thing to do... it was included in the plans.
PS: apart from the obvious "One Infinity Loop" being at it's simplest form, a circle... my first thought was the "toggle wheel" from the iPod... which actually was Apple's saving tech product, that they have built upon... to essentially be able to build this future landmark in the first place.
I find your ramblings, concerns, and this thread in general very interesting... however... considering that,
Al Gore is a member of Apple's board,
within the assorted buildings and walls at Apple are some of the most ecologically concerned citizens in CA, and probably the most intelligent combined workforce anywhere on Earth,
that it is a well known fact that SJ is a devout Buddhist and environmentally harmonious to the bone,
... I would think, and actually put my net worth on stake here, that they have collectively created close to the perfect "green" headquarters at it's proposed size.
Naturally a cost/benefit analysis has been made, and again, I would bet that any measure that was even close to costing more than the benefit if it was ecologically the right thing to do... it was included in the plans.
PS: apart from the obvious "One Infinity Loop" being at it's simplest form, a circle... my first thought was the "toggle wheel" from the iPod... which actually was Apple's saving tech product, that they have built upon... to essentially be able to build this future landmark in the first place.
Well said. And I like Dlux's line of inquiry as well.
... I would think, and actually put my net worth on stake here, that they have collectively created close to the perfect "green" headquarters at it's proposed size.
I don't think that's the case - a perfect 'green' headquarters would probably look a lot different. I think they prioritized instead on style (certainly not cost; curved windows are the antithesis of that idea.) And again I have no problem with that. I've stated that I'm no fan of bland architecture.
I'm simply lamenting (probably too much at this point) that there was no mention of PV generation. Had Jobs thrown that into his presentation, even if it was relegated to secondary buildings, I think that would have sent a positive message to all that are following this.
At some point in the future solar generation won't be a luxury, or even a borderline economic exercise. It will be a necessity. There are simply too many new buildings going up for our current electric grid, and those liquid dinosaurs won't last forever. And as panel/inverter prices continue to drop it won't even be an issue - people will install PV panels just like they install insulation in the walls. They'll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. But we need to get there, and every example that gets set by those who lead public sentiment is an important step along the way.
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.
Waste heat can also be used to drive chillers for air conditioning.
Apple already is set for free WIFI FOR THE WHOLE CITY .
BESIDES BEING A HUGE TAX BREAK
ITS A BIG BONUS FOR APPLE TO SUPPORT THEIR HOME CITY
and its all green wow
9
Eventually the free wifi for Cupertino will take care of itself when Apple expands it's ringed mothership to swallow the entire city of Cupertino. Since everyone will live and work witin the borders of Apple, the wifi will be complementary.
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).
Say what now?
It's only illegal if you are bartering with councillors for their individual benefit. A city council insisting on concessions for public benefit from a builder is perfectly legal and acceptable and is common practice not just in the US but everywhere else too.
Comments
I'm not big on symbolic gestures.
The entire building is one huge symbolic gesture!!
Think about it; a corporate headquarter really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy building with windows and a parking lot. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree.
Apple has chosen to spend their well-earned money on an expensive, stylistic edifice for the sake of telling the world that they are successful. I have no problem with that. They may also attract more talent as a result (although at this point I suspect people would still line up to work at Apple even if it was located in an underground bunker). But they are also making a permanent statement to the world (and the Cupertino government) that they value certain details over others, including the replanting of trees that they have no legal obligation to do and to include certain 'green' architecture elements (Jobs even said it explicitly).
My only complaint here is they didn't include (or at least mention) some element of solar electrical generation*. Not necessarily because it would make a huge impact on their operating costs, but because it would tell other would-be Apples that it's an appropriate thing to do. I might be wrong - maybe there are panels located elsewhere on campus and Jobs didn't bring it up. (And then your argument will be invalidated here.) In any case, any new construction that goes up in this day and age that doesn't attempt to capture the free energy raining down on the roof is, in my opinion, a huge lost opportunity that borders on the criminal. I fly over new housing developments that are only a year old that could be generating megawatts of electricity that instead sap the electric grid, add to our overall pollution, and enrich companies that have far less social conscience than Apple or any other tech company that people look up to.
Google, meanwhile, is offsetting 30% of their electricity use at the 'Plex.
Edit: *And the solar panels do not have to be on the Big Donut - they could be elsewhere on the campus, such as along the perimeter or the support buildings. And maybe that is indeed in the works, but this presentation didn't mention it.
So Apple are building their own particle accelerator?
The concept looks spectacular. I really love how Apple are trying to return so much of the surface land back to its indigenous state. The building really looks like it's sharing the land with nature rather than dominating it.
This is exactly what modern companies should be doing with their new buildings.
Partical accelerator was my first thought too...
While this is a beautiful building it's worth noting that while the aerial view showing the courtyard makes it look all green to humans standing on the ground outside it's still going to look pretty massive.
I love jobs comment about taxes and muni wifi.
Actually, that still one of the concerns. While it's not the worst problem for birds, anything that makes the situation worse needs to be looked into.
True - though glass façades have been known to cause duck deaths (and worse) without needing wind turbines. (In)Famously giving rise to the following (Ig) Nobel winning paper
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20874742/H...in-the-Mallard
The entire building is one huge symbolic gesture!!
Think about it; a corporate headquarter really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy building with windows and a parking lot. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree.
Apple has chosen to spend their well-earned money on an expensive, stylistic edifice for the sake of telling the world that they are successful. I have no problem with that. They may also attract more talent as a result (although at this point I suspect people would still line up to work at Apple even if it was located in an underground bunker). But they are also making a permanent statement to the world (and the Cupertino government) that they value certain details over others, including the replanting of trees that they have no legal obligation to do and to include certain 'green' architecture elements (Jobs even said it explicitly).
My only complaint here is they didn't include (or at least mention) some element of solar electrical generation*. Not necessarily because it would make a huge impact on their operating costs, but because it would tell other would-be Apples that it's an appropriate thing to do. I might be wrong - maybe there are panels located elsewhere on campus and Jobs didn't bring it up. (And then your argument will be invalidated here.) In any case, any new construction that goes up in this day and age that doesn't attempt to capture the free energy raining down on the roof is, in my opinion, a huge lost opportunity that borders on the criminal. I fly over new housing developments that are only a year old that could be generating megawatts of electricity that instead sap the electric grid, add to our overall pollution, and enrich companies that have far less social conscience than Apple or any other tech company that people look up to.
Google, meanwhile, is offsetting 30% of their electricity use at the 'Plex.
Edit: *And the solar panels do not have to be on the Big Donut - they could be elsewhere on the campus, such as along the perimeter or the support buildings. And maybe that is indeed in the works, but this presentation didn't mention it.
I mean when adding something that gives an impression of being green, but which isn't making much difference. I don't know how much Google is getting from their installations. Is there an independent report that they didn't pay for?
I'm not saying that Apple hasn't put any solar up, just that if they don't feel it's going to do them much good, then they shouldn't. If they feel it will, then they should. I'm not against it.
True - though glass façades have been known to cause duck deaths (and worse) without needing wind turbines. (In)Famously giving rise to the following (Ig) Nobel winning paper
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20874742/H...in-the-Mallard
There are SO many problems. Domestic cats are, or were, the worst predator of domestic songbirds. But try to convince most cat owners who allow their cats out, to stop doing that, or to spay them so they won't breed outside, is another matter.
But we have to start somewhere.
The entire building is one huge symbolic gesture!!
Think about it; a corporate headquarter really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy building with windows and a parking lot. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree.
Apple has chosen to spend their well-earned money on an expensive, stylistic edifice for the sake of telling the world that they are successful. I have no problem with that.
I'm not sure I totally agree with that. First of all, I frequently work at Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, a company in San Francisco that has a very similar problem to Apple's. We have too many employees with too little space, so people are forced to work in different buildings. And honestly, it's a pain in the ass when you have to go from one to another. So having people consolidated is pretty obviously relevant.
Secondly, are you honestly trying to argue that working in some crappy box of a building is the same as working in a well designed one?? That's like saying the only difference between the Mac and Windows is that the mac is glitzier. Let me use your words:
"Think about it; [an operating system] really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy [piece of software] with windows and a [file system]. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree."
or
"Think about it; [a computer] really doesn't need to be anything other than a boxy [device] with [a monitor] and a [keyboard]. Everything else is glitz, so now it's just a matter of degree."
As has been frequently mentioned, the Pixar building was designed to allow people to easily interact with each other. This will be similar. In fact, I think it's very reasonable to believe that this building will be the architectural embodiment of the Apple philosophy! And if that doesn't make sense to you, I'm not even sure why you read this site! lol
Heh, interestingly I take the exact opposite view. I think they absolutely should invest in an incredible building, something that sets very high standards for energy efficiency at the same time as setting high standards for temperature comfort, lighting, and yes beauty. Part of the reason that they should is to demonstrate that they can do so profitably, in the same way that they dmonstrate that they can create beautiful products profitably and we don't have to be satisfied with drek.
Greenwashing by applying a few PV panels is exactly what they shouldn't be encouraged to do. It's the equivalent of microsoft applying a few graphical bells to an abomination of an application and calling it 'Visual'.
This building may well represent Jobs last opportunity to fundamentally shape Apple's future, and I expect he'll pull out all the stops to make it beautiful, elegant and efficient - because those are qualities he clearly admires in their own right.
I don't know about it being his last -- he's clearly got a lot of years ahead of him -- but your main point is the right way to think of this project, I think. It's mainly meant as an inspirational center for conjuring up the products of the future by their employees.
As a tourist attraction or a PR driven eco-showcase of any kind, not so much. Or even as a hangout for the community. That would be so un-Apple, and even un-California, I might add.
They may well feel that they don't want or need visitors, that's what the stores are for. And if you do any public access around the freeways there, you would be asking for traffic trouble. It's not like Rockefeller Center, it other words. California doesn't do public space in every neighborhood, and there's no public transit to speak of.
I apppreciate your posts in this thread, by the way.
Edit: Afterthought -- of course they will build in the most efficiencies that they can, and make that part of the mental atmosphere. Jobs and colleagues aren't power wasters, and wouldn't be happy working in a conventional air-conditioned nightmare of a building.
True - though glass façades have been known to cause duck deaths (and worse) without needing wind turbines. (In)Famously giving rise to the following (Ig) Nobel winning paper
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20874742/H...in-the-Mallard
Wow, that paper was not at all what I was expecting, lol!
At the Cupertino City Council, they ought to treat him like Jesus. He just proposed an environmental improvement, a sensitive architecture landmark and 12,000 jobs?!
Steve was joking
Apple already is set for free WIFI FOR THE WHOLE CITY .
BESIDES BEING A HUGE TAX BREAK
ITS A BIG BONUS FOR APPLE TO SUPPORT THEIR HOME CITY
and its all green wow
9
I like the green space inside the circle. Looks like a beautiful walled garden!
Hopefully someone doesn't jailbreak it.
I mean when adding something that gives an impression of being green, but which isn't making much difference.
I'll agree with this, as many companies/architects throw the term 'green' around so much it loses meaning. (And even LEED certification can be gamed in ways that undermine the original intent.) Unfortunately solar generation often gets thrown into this game and people don't know whether it's an honest effort or not. That's the point I'm trying to work against.
From an engineering point of view, PV makes infinite sense: convert the sunlight that is hitting your roof for free into electricity, which you need. As part of the bargain, on flat roofs solar panels even shade the surface that you would otherwise pay to insulate and cool internally from the heat transfer. (You would obviously insulate the roof for other reasons, but in the summer the heat load from the sun wouldn't be as great if they're shaded by panels.)
From an economic point of view the answer, as always, is "it depends". If you live in a cloudy climate your solar harvest will obviously be lower (although not zero). If your construction costs are high, such as on the top of a 60-story building, or an unfavorable roof pitch, that's a strike against. If the panels and inverters are too expensive, as they were in the past, your payback period extends out. But in Silicon Valley most of these concerns are no longer significant concerns. There are few places in the US more appropriate for solar installations than the sunny regions of California.
The reason I go on about this is it's one of the few topics I think need to be discussed, and more importantly, taken back from those who try to confuse the issue for who-knows-what agenda. Jimmy Carter had panels installed on the White House, and then Reagan had them removed. They were already bought and installed! This is sound economic policy? If people have hesitations against installing solar panels on new construction (setting aside the more complicated retrofit applications) it's probably because of the perpetuated myth that PV is still uneconomical. Either that, or they simply cannot handle a 15-year investment (and yet many will happily gamble their retirement funds on volatile stock offerings). This perception needs to change.
Secondly, are you honestly trying to argue that working in some crappy box of a building is the same as working in a well designed one??
Not at all. You're misconstruing my example.
I hate crappy office buildings. But once you start to add flourishes you are making decisions on what is important to employees/visitors/competitors/community and you should choose wisely. Go re-read what I wrote.
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.
Really? I thought they were embarrasingly fawning over him. The one guy whipped out his iPad 2. Geez. They should have some sense of dignity for the elected office they hold and the voters/taxpayers they are responsible too.
Now I think the building is gorgeous and a great Steve Jobs legacy. But that meeting was just painful to watch. I was embarrassed for them. I mean asking for free wifi (without even a specific context...a la Google in Mountain View) and an Apple Store, instead of questions about how the larger building will impact traffic (there was just a quick question about that) or more specific demands on the water, sewage and power grids. No concerns about say re-routing Tantau avenue (why or why didn't they?)?
And Apple just proposed building a natural gas plant down the street from a residential neighbourhood. Not a peep about that. Instead the councillors attacked another employer in town.
They didn't even ask why Apple didn't think of incorporating more solar power....I would've considered that an obvious question.
I find your ramblings, concerns, and this thread in general very interesting... however... considering that,
- Al Gore is a member of Apple's board,
- within the assorted buildings and walls at Apple are some of the most ecologically concerned citizens in CA, and probably the most intelligent combined workforce anywhere on Earth,
- that it is a well known fact that SJ is a devout Buddhist and environmentally harmonious to the bone,
... I would think, and actually put my net worth on stake here, that they have collectively created close to the perfect "green" headquarters at it's proposed size.Naturally a cost/benefit analysis has been made, and again, I would bet that any measure that was even close to costing more than the benefit if it was ecologically the right thing to do... it was included in the plans.
PS: apart from the obvious "One Infinity Loop" being at it's simplest form, a circle... my first thought was the "toggle wheel" from the iPod... which actually was Apple's saving tech product, that they have built upon... to essentially be able to build this future landmark in the first place.
@ Dlux
I find your ramblings, concerns, and this thread in general very interesting... however... considering that,
- Al Gore is a member of Apple's board,
- within the assorted buildings and walls at Apple are some of the most ecologically concerned citizens in CA, and probably the most intelligent combined workforce anywhere on Earth,
- that it is a well known fact that SJ is a devout Buddhist and environmentally harmonious to the bone,
... I would think, and actually put my net worth on stake here, that they have collectively created close to the perfect "green" headquarters at it's proposed size.Naturally a cost/benefit analysis has been made, and again, I would bet that any measure that was even close to costing more than the benefit if it was ecologically the right thing to do... it was included in the plans.
PS: apart from the obvious "One Infinity Loop" being at it's simplest form, a circle... my first thought was the "toggle wheel" from the iPod... which actually was Apple's saving tech product, that they have built upon... to essentially be able to build this future landmark in the first place.
Well said. And I like Dlux's line of inquiry as well.
... I would think, and actually put my net worth on stake here, that they have collectively created close to the perfect "green" headquarters at it's proposed size.
I don't think that's the case - a perfect 'green' headquarters would probably look a lot different. I think they prioritized instead on style (certainly not cost; curved windows are the antithesis of that idea.) And again I have no problem with that. I've stated that I'm no fan of bland architecture.
I'm simply lamenting (probably too much at this point) that there was no mention of PV generation. Had Jobs thrown that into his presentation, even if it was relegated to secondary buildings, I think that would have sent a positive message to all that are following this.
At some point in the future solar generation won't be a luxury, or even a borderline economic exercise. It will be a necessity. There are simply too many new buildings going up for our current electric grid, and those liquid dinosaurs won't last forever. And as panel/inverter prices continue to drop it won't even be an issue - people will install PV panels just like they install insulation in the walls. They'll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. But we need to get there, and every example that gets set by those who lead public sentiment is an important step along the way.
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.
Waste heat can also be used to drive chillers for air conditioning.
Steve was joking
Apple already is set for free WIFI FOR THE WHOLE CITY .
BESIDES BEING A HUGE TAX BREAK
ITS A BIG BONUS FOR APPLE TO SUPPORT THEIR HOME CITY
and its all green wow
9
Eventually the free wifi for Cupertino will take care of itself when Apple expands it's ringed mothership to swallow the entire city of Cupertino. Since everyone will live and work witin the borders of Apple, the wifi will be complementary.
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).
Say what now?
It's only illegal if you are bartering with councillors for their individual benefit. A city council insisting on concessions for public benefit from a builder is perfectly legal and acceptable and is common practice not just in the US but everywhere else too.
Waste heat can also be used to drive chillers for air conditioning.
I just love the irony of that.
(Similar to natural gas-powered refrigerators.)