Wanting for real estate, Apple may undertake 'major expansion' in San Jose - report

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,054member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post



    Given California's dreadful political system, Apple would be well-advised to shift its staff, including developers, to other high-tech centers, including Raleigh, Huntsville, and Austin.



    It's not just that California 'ain't got no water' and didn't prepare for this drought. Its highways and public schools are among the worst in the country due to dreadful special interest politics and crony politics. Some of the country's worst rich/poor gaps don't help either.



    Think Detroit or Baltimore and you'll get an idea where it's headed.

    We ain't pay that fucking crazy property tax in Texas. No thanks. California is still the best State in America. 

  • Reply 22 of 37
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jfc1138 wrote: »

    California has plenty of water, just not enough for hamburger, almonds or cotton industrial agriculture until the snow/rains return.

    And the water bottling industry.
  • Reply 23 of 37
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,728member
    mjtomlin wrote: »

    The south bay doesn't quite shake as much during an earthquake as you might expect. When we lived in San Jose during the 89' quake, not so much as a plate fell over. That epicenter was just southwest of San Jose in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Most damage is from shoddy construction and structures built on much less stable landfill.

    Good to know but I was really plugging Florida ;)
  • Reply 24 of 37
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member

    Good to see Apple staying loyal to its roots.   Increased salaries for the industry as a whole on the west coast doesn't hurt either. ;-)

  • Reply 25 of 37
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Good to know but I was really plugging Florida ;)

    Too many Jews. :lol:
  • Reply 26 of 37
    kent909kent909 Posts: 731member

    They should just buy whole town of Cupertino and change the name to iTown  8-) 

  • Reply 27 of 37
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

     

    They should just buy whole town of Cupertino and change the name to iTown  8-) 




    would that be "myTown"?  Actually, I think Apple is moving away from the "i" branding.  It would be more simply "Apple Town".   Avoids lawsuits that way. 

  • Reply 28 of 37
    fred1fred1 Posts: 1,112member
    "Apple is expanding much faster than Steve imagined back in 2009"

    Too bad it's almost impossible to expand a circular building without making a mess. Except up. I guess Steve and Norman didn't think this through very well.
  • Reply 29 of 37
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    fred1 wrote: »
    "Apple is expanding much faster than Steve imagined back in 2009"

    Too bad it's almost impossible to expand a circular building without making a mess. Except up. I guess Steve and Norman didn't think this through very well.

    Why expand outwardly when you can expand upwardly?
  • Reply 30 of 37
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    fred1 wrote: »
    "Apple is expanding much faster than Steve imagined back in 2009"

    Too bad it's almost impossible to expand a circular building without making a mess. Except up. I guess Steve and Norman didn't think this through very well.

    I thought this expansion was because Apple needs the space now and the new campus won't be ready until next year.
  • Reply 31 of 37
    fred1fred1 Posts: 1,112member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Why expand outwardly when you can expand upwardly?

    Agreed. That's why I wrote "Except up". But I don't believe there's any provision for adding more floors to the new HQ building. It's too bad.
  • Reply 32 of 37
    fred1fred1 Posts: 1,112member
    rogifan wrote: »
    I thought this expansion was because Apple needs the space now and the new campus won't be ready until next year.

    Don't think so. The new building holds "only" 13,000 people and Apple has much more than that.

    But I wonder about the present buildings: won't there be enough room there for everyone once the 13,000 go to the new campus?
  • Reply 33 of 37
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    fred1 wrote: »
    "Apple is expanding much faster than Steve imagined back in 2009"

    Too bad it's almost impossible to expand a circular building without making a mess. Except up. I guess Steve and Norman didn't think this through very well.

    Of course they thought it through. Four stories is the maximum height this building could be and still be in human and natural scale. Aside from obvious proportion considerations, there would be a height relationship to the trees to consider.

    One whole mandate of the building is to avoid the box and to avoid the high-rise.
  • Reply 34 of 37
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    flaneur wrote: »
    fred1 wrote: »
    "Apple is expanding much faster than Steve imagined back in 2009"

    Too bad it's almost impossible to expand a circular building without making a mess. Except up. I guess Steve and Norman didn't think this through very well.

    Of course they thought it through. Four stories is the maximum height this building could be and still be in human and natural scale. Aside from obvious proportion considerations, there would be a height relationship to the trees to consider.

    One whole mandate of the building is to avoid the box and to avoid the high-rise.

    So go down.
  • Reply 35 of 37
    fred1fred1 Posts: 1,112member
    flaneur wrote: »
    Of course they thought it through. Four stories is the maximum height this building could be and still be in human and natural scale. Aside from obvious proportion considerations, there would be a height relationship to the trees to consider.

    One whole mandate of the building is to avoid the box and to avoid the high-rise.

    Well, the issue remains that they're spending billions on a new building, but still don't have enough space. One would expect such a forward-thinking company to have thought of building something that could be expanded.

    But maybe the architects didn't ask Steve because they "never ask people what they want because they don't know anyway."
  • Reply 36 of 37
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    fred1 wrote: »
    Well, the issue remains that they're spending billions on a new building, but still don't have enough space. One would expect such a forward-thinking company to have thought of building something that could be expanded.

    But maybe the architects didn't ask Steve because they "never ask people what they want because they don't know anyway."

    Yes, it seems puzzling on its face, doesn't it. From the point of view of conventional thinking, the building is obsolete before it's half-built.

    More utilitarian thinking might say, forget the scale and build up, or forget the wooded park and build outward. Put a pyramid next to that circle, or whatever. But a population of 13,000 is already a small town's worth of people that have to be supported by that little parkland, and moved in and out every morning and evening.

    The rules they chose to work under aren't conventional and utilitarian, they're ecological and psychological. The orchard and the park are the dominant feature under which the building has to work, the ultimate goal being the heightened creative state of mind of the people, who for once aren't unconsciously oppressed by brutal architecture that ignores nature and human scale.
  • Reply 37 of 37
    fred1fred1 Posts: 1,112member
    flaneur wrote: »
    Yes, it seems puzzling on its face, doesn't it. From the point of view of conventional thinking, the building is obsolete before it's half-built.

    More utilitarian thinking might say, forget the scale and build up, or forget the wooded park and build outward. Put a pyramid next to that circle, or whatever. But a population of 13,000 is already a small town's worth of people that have to be supported by that little parkland, and moved in and out every morning and evening.

    The rules they chose to work under aren't conventional and utilitarian, they're ecological and psychological. The orchard and the park are the dominant feature under which the building has to work, the ultimate goal being the heightened creative state of mind of the people, who for once aren't unconsciously oppressed by brutal architecture that ignores nature and human scale.

    Very true. There is a lot of sense (and beauty) in limiting the building population to 13,000, for traffic reasons to name just one. And of course I salute the decision to leave so much open space and bring it back, in a sense, to its pre-Silicon Valley form.

    I still wonder what will happen to the present campus. Does Apple really need that, plus the new building, plus additional real estate, all in that area? Yikes!
Sign In or Register to comment.