Apple thought to be seeking vast expanses of office space in Seattle

Posted:
in General Discussion
Real estate companies in the Pacific Northwest are allegedly "buzzing" that a large California business, presumably Apple, is eyeing Seattle for potential expansion.




Citing multiple sources familiar with the matter, GeekWire on Friday claimed that Apple may be seeking hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space, accommodating up to 2,300 workers. Sites identified as interesting to the unnamed California company are the Centre 425 building, the 929 Office Tower, and the Lincoln Square expansion tower, all under construction.

It's not clear why Apple would want a massive presence in Seattle. While Apple just purchased machine learning startup Turi, located in the area, that firm already has office space and staff could easily be relocated to existing Apple offices in the region with room to spare.

After Apple purchased cloud computing company Union Bay Networks in 2014, it set up a temporary office space, ultimately moving into a larger venue in downtown Seattle. Apple currently leases about 30,000 square feet in Seattle, suitable for around 200 employees and support for same.

LinkedIn profile checks show only about 85 Apple workers in the area not tied to retail operations, and that includes some (but not all) of the people associated with Turi. Additionally, AppleInsider has been told that the Apple office space is improved and ready for employee move-in, and has been for some time, yet remains mostly empty.

A Seattle space would put Apple engineers closer to large data centers and large hubs for cloud-based computing. However, even that attraction is outweighed somewhat by Apple's own data centers in the U.S., with facilities in Newark, California; Reno, Nevada; Maiden, North Carolina; and Prineville, Oregon.

Apple's new Silicon Valley headquarters is nearing completion, which will house 12,000 just in the main building after the completion of Phase 1. Phase 2 will add additional workspace, as well as a small data center.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,142member

    It's not clear why Apple would want a massive presence in Seattle.
    Because they can.
    Mike Wuerthelelolliver
  • Reply 2 of 28
    plovellplovell Posts: 826member
    Maybe Apple is buying Microsoft?
    SpamSandwichlolliverwelshdog
  • Reply 3 of 28
    I guess saying that it is Apple drives up the cost/sq ft a lot more than say Google/Alphabet or Oracle or HP
    What if it turns out that it is not Apple? Does the Seattle Office market Tank? Perhaps it is time to short the stocks related to this? :)
    I've seen all this before. Every development gets embiggened by the selling/letting agent by them saying that a certain large company is also interested in the property so sign up now or it will be gone.
    Now its Apple's turn to be mentioned with almost every property.
     
    mike1
  • Reply 4 of 28
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,901moderator
    Maybe it's related to their health initiatives.  Both the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and PATH are based there.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_(global_health_organization)
  • Reply 5 of 28
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,142member
    Maybe it's related to their health initiatives.  Both the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and PATH are based there.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_(global_health_organization)
    As is the University of Washington, one of the largest recipients of federal funding for research.
    radarthekatlolliverhmm
  • Reply 6 of 28
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,433member
    plovell said:
    Maybe Apple is buying Microsoft?
    Then they would also be buying a massive MS campus.
    cnocbui
  • Reply 7 of 28
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    mike1 said:
    plovell said:
    Maybe Apple is buying Microsoft?
    Then they would also be buying a massive MS campus.
    ...and then shut it down.
    rotateleftbytedesignrmelodyof1974pscooter63welshdog
  • Reply 8 of 28
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    I think Apple will relocate thousands of inefficient employees they want to get rid of to Seattle and hope Cascadia will take care of business. Sorry, maybe that's in poor taste but why anybody would relocate to anywhere within reach of the Cascadia fault is beyond me.  Seriously. If in doubt please read this http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
  • Reply 9 of 28
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    eightzero said:

    It's not clear why Apple would want a massive presence in Seattle.
    Because they can.
    Maybe, just maybe they watched the movie San Andreas starring the Rock. Can you smell what the Rock is cooking?
    freshmaker
  • Reply 10 of 28
    Apple hires engineers and other employees from a specialized cohort -- not from the general population. The new Apple office location suggests that members of the specialized cohort are more plentiful in Seattle than almost anywhere else in America. Microsoft and Amazon have big operations in Seattle, so this is hardly in dispute. (The same logic explains why Apple/Foxconn went to China: to hire qualified workers in adequate numbers.)
    radarthekatpte apple
  • Reply 11 of 28
    plovell said:
    Maybe Apple is buying Microsoft?
    Today, in a presentation of a mock-up of our new intranet there was a news article "Apple buying Contoso".
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 12 of 28
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,300member
    paxman said:
    I think Apple will relocate thousands of inefficient employees they want to get rid of to Seattle and hope Cascadia will take care of business. Sorry, maybe that's in poor taste but why anybody would relocate to anywhere within reach of the Cascadia fault is beyond me.  Seriously. If in doubt please read this http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Ever heard of the San Andreas fault? The Cascadia is nothing compared to the San Andreas and Apple headquarters is practically on top of it. Building on a fault can be "beyond you" but it's safer than building in many other areas of the US where tornados, hurricanes, and flood are a given. Yes, CA has earthquakes but these don't compare to the amount of annual damage happening in the midwest and eastern seaboard.

    As far as relocating workers, WA doesn't have an income tax, which can benefit the workers. Even though Seattle real estate is expensive, SF Bay Area is beyond expensive. Apple should have built dormitories for workers in the new building since Cupertino housing is very expensive as well. 


    fastasleep
  • Reply 13 of 28
    rob53 said:
    paxman said:
    I think Apple will relocate thousands of inefficient employees they want to get rid of to Seattle and hope Cascadia will take care of business. Sorry, maybe that's in poor taste but why anybody would relocate to anywhere within reach of the Cascadia fault is beyond me.  Seriously. If in doubt please read this http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Even though Seattle real estate is expensive, SF Bay Area is beyond expensive. 
    Yep.  San Jose now takes the top prize with a $1 million median home price.  Whoa!

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/10/the-typical-home-in-san-jose-now-costs-more-than-1-million/
  • Reply 14 of 28
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    rob53 said:
    paxman said:
    I think Apple will relocate thousands of inefficient employees they want to get rid of to Seattle and hope Cascadia will take care of business. Sorry, maybe that's in poor taste but why anybody would relocate to anywhere within reach of the Cascadia fault is beyond me.  Seriously. If in doubt please read this http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Apple should have built dormitories for workers in the new building since Cupertino housing is very expensive as well. 


    Eventually it may happen, but they would have to be woodsy neighborhoods of houses and condos, not dormitories. "The world's finest company town," etc.
  • Reply 15 of 28
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    rob53 said:
    paxman said:
    I think Apple will relocate thousands of inefficient employees they want to get rid of to Seattle and hope Cascadia will take care of business. Sorry, maybe that's in poor taste but why anybody would relocate to anywhere within reach of the Cascadia fault is beyond me.  Seriously. If in doubt please read this http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Ever heard of the San Andreas fault? The Cascadia is nothing compared to the San Andreas and Apple headquarters is practically on top of it. Building on a fault can be "beyond you" but it's safer than building in many other areas of the US where tornados, hurricanes, and flood are a given. Yes, CA has earthquakes but these don't compare to the amount of annual damage happening in the midwest and eastern seaboard.

    As far as relocating workers, WA doesn't have an income tax, which can benefit the workers. Even though Seattle real estate is expensive, SF Bay Area is beyond expensive. Apple should have built dormitories for workers in the new building since Cupertino housing is very expensive as well. 


    Just because you THINK you know what you are talking about it doesn't mean you do. The Cascadia is nothing compared to the St Andrea? Read the article I linked to previously (posted here again), and then the others... and then you can come back and eat humble pie

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
  • Reply 16 of 28
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,609member
    Apple is adding several hundred thousand square feet of office space in most tech-heavy cities; to think otherwise would be ignoring the realities of trying to hire talented people. 

    I doubt that is how they go about it though; I would imagine the shell companies lease smaller facilities to avoid the realtor's "apple tax."
  • Reply 17 of 28
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,452member
    paxman said:
    rob53 said:
    Ever heard of the San Andreas fault? The Cascadia is nothing compared to the San Andreas and Apple headquarters is practically on top of it. Building on a fault can be "beyond you" but it's safer than building in many other areas of the US where tornados, hurricanes, and flood are a given. Yes, CA has earthquakes but these don't compare to the amount of annual damage happening in the midwest and eastern seaboard.

    As far as relocating workers, WA doesn't have an income tax, which can benefit the workers. Even though Seattle real estate is expensive, SF Bay Area is beyond expensive. Apple should have built dormitories for workers in the new building since Cupertino housing is very expensive as well. 


    Just because you THINK you know what you are talking about it doesn't mean you do. The Cascadia is nothing compared to the St Andrea? Read the article I linked to previously (posted here again), and then the others... and then you can come back and eat humble pie

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Yeah, but what're you gonna do.
  • Reply 18 of 28
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    paxman said:
    Just because you THINK you know what you are talking about it doesn't mean you do. The Cascadia is nothing compared to the St Andrea? Read the article I linked to previously (posted here again), and then the others... and then you can come back and eat humble pie

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Yeah, but what're you gonna do.
    San Francisco lies outside the danger zone. I just wouldn't invest massively and place key personnel in an area that will be wiped out in the event.
  • Reply 19 of 28
    makes total sense that they would move there. i would say that it's even obvious.

    there's a lot of tech talent to poach up there due to microsoft, and amazon. facebook and google also have offices up there. great computer science program at UW as well. people who live up there tend to want to stay up there and the cost of living, although high, is still quite a bit less than that of silicon valley. apple moving up there is exactly the same reason why under armour is making a huge move to set up shop in portland as well. there's nike, adidas usa, columbia all within shouting distance. All about going to where the talent is.
  • Reply 20 of 28
    Seattle has enough growth issues already. As someone who lives here and will leave as soon as my kid graduates high school, it is getting impossible to live here. No housing supply, no infrastructure, no mass transit, and some of the worst traffic in the country. Amazon is building like there is no tomorrow, startups flock here in droves so hipsters can drink coffee, and Microsoft continues to hire on a regular basis.
Sign In or Register to comment.