The new campus looks amazing. I'm sure it will set trends for many decades to come.
The only thing that worries me is that every time I've worked for a company that grew into a new cutting-edge campus, they fell on hard times and ended up leasing most of it out. Of course, I can point to mistakes made in those cases, and cannot in Apple's case. They are doing incredible things, and they just plain need this campus for the next step.
Yeah... I don't think Apple will have the same problems as other companies.
The crazy thing is... the new Spaceship campus and the old Infinite Loop campus still isn't enough to house all of Apple's Silicon Valley-area employees. But Campus 2 will certainly put plenty of employees in one place.
I like the new campus. I hate skyscrapers. I remember Steve Jobs commenting on the new campus, saying how it was on a human scale because of the lowness. I wish the world as a whole would move away from high buildings and start building low, on a human scale. Nothing would please me more than to see every single skyscraper blown up to kingdom come (with no-one in them).
Why stop there? Let's then mandate population control so we don't have a shortage of housing, and institute regulations that bar an individual from entering a city until there is housing made available to them first?
Face it... In a place I like to call "Utopia" where the earth is 100 times larger, with swaths of land that will allow only 1-story structures, for an ever-growing population, the reality dictates that if there is no more land available somewhere, the only direction to build is up.
They could have combined the trilobal (plus a private passageway) design and the circular design and made a huge f**cking peace sign and had the whole thing done out in post modern psychedelic minimalism style. Steve would have like that.
Why stop there? Let's then mandate population control so we don't have a shortage of housing, and institute regulations that bar an individual from entering a city until there is housing made available to them first?
Face it... In a place I like to call "Utopia" where the earth is 100 times larger, with swaths of land that will allow only 1-story structures, for an ever-growing population, the reality dictates that if there is no more land available somewhere, the only direction to build is up.
Frosty has a on-going propensity to ignore the rest of the world. It doesn't realize that there are places like London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, etc. that can't grow horizontally.
He has a repeat habit of ignoring other religions, cultures, etc. Even something simple like accepting the idea that there are non-Christian holidays is beyond him.
He has been repeatedly reminded that there's a world far larger than his little town, but he just doesn't get it. My guess is that he has never travelled further than 100km from his bedroom.
I like the new campus. I hate skyscrapers. I remember Steve Jobs commenting on the new campus, saying how it was on a human scale because of the lowness. I wish the world as a whole would move away from high buildings and start building low, on a human scale. Nothing would please me more than to see every single skyscraper blown up to kingdom come (with no-one in them).
Why stop there? Let's then mandate population control so we don't have a shortage of housing, and institute regulations that bar an individual from entering a city until there is housing made available to them first?
Face it... In a place I like to call "Utopia" where the earth is 100 times larger, with swaths of land that will allow only 1-story structures, for an ever-growing population, the reality dictates that if there is no more land available somewhere, the only direction to build is up.
Apart that here in the UK, there are dozens of cities sitting half empty, with huge swathes of brown space begging to be developed on. But London is expensive, so developers build there for maximum profit, and sod the impact on residents. London is heavily overpopulated, a living hell. If we had a mayor with any kind of integrity, he would severely restrict these ugly carbuncles spoiling the skyline. But we have Boris Johnson.
In 1971, someone commented to Mike Vance (creative director of Walt Disney Studios at the time) "Isn't it too bad Walt Disney didn't live to see this?" (referring to Walt Disney World)
"He did see it." Vance replied simply. "That's why it's here."
I imagine the same applies to Jobs. It's his vision still driving the project.
I like the new campus. I hate skyscrapers. I remember Steve Jobs commenting on the new campus, saying how it was on a human scale because of the lowness. I wish the world as a whole would move away from high buildings and start building low, on a human scale. Nothing would please me more than to see every single skyscraper blown up to kingdom come (with no-one in them).
Would that be blown to United Kingdom Come?
Seriously while many high buildings are horrible I'd agree, like those in UK housing projects, many are wonderful, like top notch hotels or many offices in space limited areas such as city centers. My main criticism is the shadows they can cause but it only takes a few stories to do that, albeit on a lesser scale.
Why stop there? Let's then mandate population control so we don't have a shortage of housing, and institute regulations that bar an individual from entering a city until there is housing made available to them first?
Face it... In a place I like to call "Utopia" where the earth is 100 times larger, with swaths of land that will allow only 1-story structures, for an ever-growing population, the reality dictates that if there is no more land available somewhere, the only direction to build is up.
(although I don't agree with the implosion idea,) obviously you are one who "can't stop" at a logical place.
Where did you get the idea that "skyscrapers" are so sustainable anyway? Palo Alto is hardly a Location that merits "building up." Skyscrapers are not terribly efficient or sustainable in themselves. The design is made expedient in the face of incredibly high land prices in some very few areas of the world.
This building is a far better solution for it's setting than any sky scraper could possibly have been. Not only that but it intelligently incorporates some tall building design strategies and renders them in a far more useful and efficient form than they could ever be in a skyscraper.
Finally, I don't think a "sky scraper" design could possibly fulfill the main goal of this building. It must provide an environment conducive to the activities of Apple Inc. and the people working there. A highly vertically stacked environment would be disruptive for the practical work that must be done in this building. Also Apple;s main concern is designing and producing human centered objects that fit into human lives. An environment that overwhelms the human scale is simply a distraction and disruption.
[Sorry you have taken the brunt/blame in this post, sflocal. I really mean it as a general response to *all* the blowback for skyscrapers that was posted, although some of it seems more in response to frosty's extreme position, it seems. I'm just tired of the "skyscrapers are good/sustainable" meme that is often taken by folks. ]
The only thing that worries me is that every time I've worked for a company that grew into a new cutting-edge campus, they fell on hard times and ended up leasing most of it out. Of course, I can point to mistakes made in those cases, and cannot in Apple's case. They are doing incredible things, and they just plain need this campus for the next step.
Unlikely they will ever need to lease out any of this building. When it's finished, they still plan to use 1 Infinite Loop.
If worse ever came to worse, they could always lease out part of 1 Infinite Loop, if they cared to (after all, both buildings are essentially bought outright [I'm sure they have done whatever makes best sense financially, tax-wise, etc., even though they can essentially pay for the buildings outright.])
Unlikely they will ever need to lease out any of this building. When it's finished, they still plan to use 1 Infinite Loop.
If worse ever came to worse, they could always lease out part of 1 Infinite Loop, if they cared to (after all, both buildings are essentially bought outright [I'm sure they have done whatever makes best sense financially, tax-wise, etc., even though they can essentially pay for the buildings outright.])
Correct.
Campus 2 consolidates many of the other satellite offices: Bandley, Bubb, Results Way, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. As leases for the latter expire, teams occupying those buildings will move to Campus 2 or newly vacated space at Infinite Loop.
Even if Apple fell on hard times, they could still retreat back to Infinite Loop or Campus 2 as there are cost savings/productivity benefits in operating a fewer number of buildings versus a wide variety of smaller offices.
There are benefits to having Apple's core engineering groups together in one building: Mac hardware, handheld device hardware, iOS, OS X, VLSI, etc. That's what Campus 2 is about: an engineering campus.
Campus 2 consolidates many of the other satellite offices: Bandley, Bubb, Results Way, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. As leases for the latter expire, teams occupying those buildings will move to Campus 2 or newly vacated space at Infinite Loop.
Even if Apple fell on hard times, they could still retreat back to Infinite Loop or Campus 2 as there are cost savings/productivity benefits in operating a fewer number of buildings versus a wide variety of smaller offices.
There are benefits to having Apple's core engineering groups together in one building: Mac hardware, handheld device hardware, iOS, OS X, VLSI, etc. That's what Campus 2 is about: an engineering campus.
Do we know who is staying at the current headquarters? Is Tim Cook moving to the new building?
Campus 2 consolidates many of the other satellite offices: Bandley, Bubb, Results Way, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. As leases for the latter expire, teams occupying those buildings will move to Campus 2 or newly vacated space at Infinite Loop.
Even if Apple fell on hard times, they could still retreat back to Infinite Loop or Campus 2 as there are cost savings/productivity benefits in operating a fewer number of buildings versus a wide variety of smaller offices.
There are benefits to having Apple's core engineering groups together in one building: Mac hardware, handheld device hardware, iOS, OS X, VLSI, etc. That's what Campus 2 is about: an engineering campus.
Do we know who is staying at the current headquarters? Is Tim Cook moving to the new building?
Campus 2 consolidates many of the other satellite offices: Bandley, Bubb, Results Way, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. As leases for the latter expire, teams occupying those buildings will move to Campus 2 or newly vacated space at Infinite Loop.
I've been extremely disappointed that plans do not call for a MAGLEV train being built to connect the two campuses.
Do we know who is staying at the current headquarters? Is Tim Cook moving to the new building?
It has been previously stated that most of the senior management team will remain at 1 Infinite Loop (which remains the corporate headquarters) and that high level administrative and corporate marketing offices remain at the location.
Most likely some officers will have work spaces at both campuses, plus there will probably be a section of executive suites and conference rooms suitable for meetings at their disposal, regardless of where their normal offices are.
It has been previously stated that most of the senior management team will remain at 1 Infinite Loop (which remains the corporate headquarters) and that high level administrative and corporate marketing offices remain at the location.
Most likely some officers will have work spaces at both campuses, plus there will probably be a section of executive suites and conference rooms suitable for meetings at their disposal, regardless of where their normal offices are.
I just re-read the campus portion of this Ive profile and it says his design teams will occupy a top floor space of 30,000 sq ft. So I would assume he'll either have an office in both buildings or spend most of his time in Campus 2.
I just re-read the campus portion of this Ive profile and it says his design teams will occupy a top floor space of 30,000 sq ft. So I would assume he'll either have an office in both buildings or spend most of his time in Campus 2.
When they put in the MAGLEV he can park in the handicap spot at 1 Infinite Loop and have his office at Campus 2!
I just re-read the campus portion of this Ive profile and it says his design teams will occupy a top floor space of 30,000 sq ft. So I would assume he'll either have an office in both buildings or spend most of his time in Campus 2.
Yeah, that's great, but that's Ive, not Cook.
Ive is not part of the executive team, at least not in the traditional role. Ive is definitely important, maybe the #2 guy in the company.
Tim on the other hand is definitely an executive level officer, unlikely that he would be spending most of his time in an engineering facility. After all, he's a supply/business specialist.
Let's face it, Cook can have hundreds of offices around the world, but he doesn't.
My guess is that Tim would say, "Campus 2? Don't save me a room, put an engineer in my spot."
Ive is not part of the executive team, at least not in the traditional role. Ive is definitely important, maybe the #2 guy in the company.
Not part of the executive team? Really? He's the senior VP of Design in a company that's very much about design and Engineering. I would call all the Senior VPs part of the so called "C suite" (I hate that term) or the "executive team." They all make executive decisions within their very important and non-overlapping areas. There are only two executives at Apple with "Chief" in their titles, the CEO and the CFO. everyone else is a Senior VP, just like Ive. Additionally there are directors, in which case they are on the board of directors, but are not what I would call executives at Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone
Tim on the other hand is definitely an executive level officer, unlikely that he would be spending most of his time in an engineering facility. After all, he's a supply/business specialist.
He's the CEO, so yes, he is "definitely an executive level officer." But I wouldn't call the Campus 2 building simply "an engineering facility." And I'm sure he'll have a strong presence there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone
Let's face it, Cook can have hundreds of offices around the world, but he doesn't.
No he doesn't. That would be a really stupid thing to do and he's not stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone
My guess is that Tim would say, "Campus 2? Don't save me a room, put an engineer in my spot."
Really? I doubt it. I'm sure he'll keep a spot in the new facility. It would be strange if he didn't have a home of some kind there as well. He'll have many thing to do at the new facility that aren't like what you would think of as "executive duties" so home spot there will be very different from his Infinite loop office.
Comments
Yeah... I don't think Apple will have the same problems as other companies.
The crazy thing is... the new Spaceship campus and the old Infinite Loop campus still isn't enough to house all of Apple's Silicon Valley-area employees. But Campus 2 will certainly put plenty of employees in one place.
I wonder if they are planning Apple Campus 3 yet?
Lovely post.
I like the new campus. I hate skyscrapers. I remember Steve Jobs commenting on the new campus, saying how it was on a human scale because of the lowness. I wish the world as a whole would move away from high buildings and start building low, on a human scale. Nothing would please me more than to see every single skyscraper blown up to kingdom come (with no-one in them).
Why stop there? Let's then mandate population control so we don't have a shortage of housing, and institute regulations that bar an individual from entering a city until there is housing made available to them first?
Face it... In a place I like to call "Utopia" where the earth is 100 times larger, with swaths of land that will allow only 1-story structures, for an ever-growing population, the reality dictates that if there is no more land available somewhere, the only direction to build is up.
Trilobal.
They could have combined the trilobal (plus a private passageway) design and the circular design and made a huge f**cking peace sign and had the whole thing done out in post modern psychedelic minimalism style. Steve would have like that.
Why stop there? Let's then mandate population control so we don't have a shortage of housing, and institute regulations that bar an individual from entering a city until there is housing made available to them first?
Face it... In a place I like to call "Utopia" where the earth is 100 times larger, with swaths of land that will allow only 1-story structures, for an ever-growing population, the reality dictates that if there is no more land available somewhere, the only direction to build is up.
Frosty has a on-going propensity to ignore the rest of the world. It doesn't realize that there are places like London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, etc. that can't grow horizontally.
He has a repeat habit of ignoring other religions, cultures, etc. Even something simple like accepting the idea that there are non-Christian holidays is beyond him.
He has been repeatedly reminded that there's a world far larger than his little town, but he just doesn't get it. My guess is that he has never travelled further than 100km from his bedroom.
Lovely post.
I like the new campus. I hate skyscrapers. I remember Steve Jobs commenting on the new campus, saying how it was on a human scale because of the lowness. I wish the world as a whole would move away from high buildings and start building low, on a human scale. Nothing would please me more than to see every single skyscraper blown up to kingdom come (with no-one in them).
Why stop there? Let's then mandate population control so we don't have a shortage of housing, and institute regulations that bar an individual from entering a city until there is housing made available to them first?
Face it... In a place I like to call "Utopia" where the earth is 100 times larger, with swaths of land that will allow only 1-story structures, for an ever-growing population, the reality dictates that if there is no more land available somewhere, the only direction to build is up.
Apart that here in the UK, there are dozens of cities sitting half empty, with huge swathes of brown space begging to be developed on. But London is expensive, so developers build there for maximum profit, and sod the impact on residents. London is heavily overpopulated, a living hell. If we had a mayor with any kind of integrity, he would severely restrict these ugly carbuncles spoiling the skyline. But we have Boris Johnson.
Must be karma for all of London's sins.
Great comment.
Would that be blown to United Kingdom Come?
Seriously while many high buildings are horrible I'd agree, like those in UK housing projects, many are wonderful, like top notch hotels or many offices in space limited areas such as city centers. My main criticism is the shadows they can cause but it only takes a few stories to do that, albeit on a lesser scale.
Why stop there? Let's then mandate population control so we don't have a shortage of housing, and institute regulations that bar an individual from entering a city until there is housing made available to them first?
Face it... In a place I like to call "Utopia" where the earth is 100 times larger, with swaths of land that will allow only 1-story structures, for an ever-growing population, the reality dictates that if there is no more land available somewhere, the only direction to build is up.
(although I don't agree with the implosion idea,) obviously you are one who "can't stop" at a logical place.
Where did you get the idea that "skyscrapers" are so sustainable anyway? Palo Alto is hardly a Location that merits "building up." Skyscrapers are not terribly efficient or sustainable in themselves. The design is made expedient in the face of incredibly high land prices in some very few areas of the world.
This building is a far better solution for it's setting than any sky scraper could possibly have been. Not only that but it intelligently incorporates some tall building design strategies and renders them in a far more useful and efficient form than they could ever be in a skyscraper.
Finally, I don't think a "sky scraper" design could possibly fulfill the main goal of this building. It must provide an environment conducive to the activities of Apple Inc. and the people working there. A highly vertically stacked environment would be disruptive for the practical work that must be done in this building. Also Apple;s main concern is designing and producing human centered objects that fit into human lives. An environment that overwhelms the human scale is simply a distraction and disruption.
[Sorry you have taken the brunt/blame in this post, sflocal. I really mean it as a general response to *all* the blowback for skyscrapers that was posted, although some of it seems more in response to frosty's extreme position, it seems. I'm just tired of the "skyscrapers are good/sustainable" meme that is often taken by folks.
]
The only thing that worries me is that every time I've worked for a company that grew into a new cutting-edge campus, they fell on hard times and ended up leasing most of it out. Of course, I can point to mistakes made in those cases, and cannot in Apple's case. They are doing incredible things, and they just plain need this campus for the next step.
Unlikely they will ever need to lease out any of this building. When it's finished, they still plan to use 1 Infinite Loop.
If worse ever came to worse, they could always lease out part of 1 Infinite Loop, if they cared to (after all, both buildings are essentially bought outright [I'm sure they have done whatever makes best sense financially, tax-wise, etc., even though they can essentially pay for the buildings outright.])
Unlikely they will ever need to lease out any of this building. When it's finished, they still plan to use 1 Infinite Loop.
If worse ever came to worse, they could always lease out part of 1 Infinite Loop, if they cared to (after all, both buildings are essentially bought outright [I'm sure they have done whatever makes best sense financially, tax-wise, etc., even though they can essentially pay for the buildings outright.])
Correct.
Campus 2 consolidates many of the other satellite offices: Bandley, Bubb, Results Way, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. As leases for the latter expire, teams occupying those buildings will move to Campus 2 or newly vacated space at Infinite Loop.
Even if Apple fell on hard times, they could still retreat back to Infinite Loop or Campus 2 as there are cost savings/productivity benefits in operating a fewer number of buildings versus a wide variety of smaller offices.
There are benefits to having Apple's core engineering groups together in one building: Mac hardware, handheld device hardware, iOS, OS X, VLSI, etc. That's what Campus 2 is about: an engineering campus.
Do we know who is staying at the current headquarters? Is Tim Cook moving to the new building?
I think Ive will be using that hut of Jobs.
Do we know who is staying at the current headquarters? Is Tim Cook moving to the new building?
Cook, Ives, or the like will have to stay back at 1 Infinite.
Who else would have both the pull and nostalgic sense to abuse a certain handicapped parking spot in the manner to which it has become accustomed?
Campus 2 consolidates many of the other satellite offices: Bandley, Bubb, Results Way, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. As leases for the latter expire, teams occupying those buildings will move to Campus 2 or newly vacated space at Infinite Loop.
I've been extremely disappointed that plans do not call for a MAGLEV train being built to connect the two campuses.
I'd settle for an Epcot style monorail but . . .
Do we know who is staying at the current headquarters? Is Tim Cook moving to the new building?
It has been previously stated that most of the senior management team will remain at 1 Infinite Loop (which remains the corporate headquarters) and that high level administrative and corporate marketing offices remain at the location.
Most likely some officers will have work spaces at both campuses, plus there will probably be a section of executive suites and conference rooms suitable for meetings at their disposal, regardless of where their normal offices are.
I just re-read the campus portion of this Ive profile and it says his design teams will occupy a top floor space of 30,000 sq ft. So I would assume he'll either have an office in both buildings or spend most of his time in Campus 2.
I just re-read the campus portion of this Ive profile and it says his design teams will occupy a top floor space of 30,000 sq ft. So I would assume he'll either have an office in both buildings or spend most of his time in Campus 2.
When they put in the MAGLEV he can park in the handicap spot at 1 Infinite Loop and have his office at Campus 2!
I just re-read the campus portion of this Ive profile and it says his design teams will occupy a top floor space of 30,000 sq ft. So I would assume he'll either have an office in both buildings or spend most of his time in Campus 2.
Yeah, that's great, but that's Ive, not Cook.
Ive is not part of the executive team, at least not in the traditional role. Ive is definitely important, maybe the #2 guy in the company.
Tim on the other hand is definitely an executive level officer, unlikely that he would be spending most of his time in an engineering facility. After all, he's a supply/business specialist.
Let's face it, Cook can have hundreds of offices around the world, but he doesn't.
My guess is that Tim would say, "Campus 2? Don't save me a room, put an engineer in my spot."
Ive is not part of the executive team, at least not in the traditional role. Ive is definitely important, maybe the #2 guy in the company.
Not part of the executive team? Really? He's the senior VP of Design in a company that's very much about design and Engineering. I would call all the Senior VPs part of the so called "C suite" (I hate that term) or the "executive team." They all make executive decisions within their very important and non-overlapping areas. There are only two executives at Apple with "Chief" in their titles, the CEO and the CFO. everyone else is a Senior VP, just like Ive. Additionally there are directors, in which case they are on the board of directors, but are not what I would call executives at Apple.
Tim on the other hand is definitely an executive level officer, unlikely that he would be spending most of his time in an engineering facility. After all, he's a supply/business specialist.
He's the CEO, so yes, he is "definitely an executive level officer." But I wouldn't call the Campus 2 building simply "an engineering facility." And I'm sure he'll have a strong presence there.
Let's face it, Cook can have hundreds of offices around the world, but he doesn't.
No he doesn't. That would be a really stupid thing to do and he's not stupid.
My guess is that Tim would say, "Campus 2? Don't save me a room, put an engineer in my spot."
Really? I doubt it. I'm sure he'll keep a spot in the new facility. It would be strange if he didn't have a home of some kind there as well. He'll have many thing to do at the new facility that aren't like what you would think of as "executive duties" so home spot there will be very different from his Infinite loop office.