Permit breakdown pegs Apple Park 'spaceship' at over $427.5M, Steve Jobs Theater over $179...

Posted:
in General Discussion
It cost upwards of $427.5 million to build Apple Park's main ring alone, according to a report this week which examined building permits for each of the 15 major structures at Apple's new headquarters.




The second most expensive structure was the Steve Jobs Theater, valued at over $179.4 million, BuildZoom said. The site pointed out that its figures indicate only minimum costs, and that in reality budgets exceeded that, since they don't account for demolitions, temporary structures, and public infrastructure improvements. Likewise, only documents shared by the City of Cupertino were used.

The two main parking structures -- which like the main ring, feature rooftop solar panels -- cost over $113.7 million. An office building at the corner of North Tantau and 280 cost nearly $115.4 million, while the Visitor's Center at Tantau and Pruneridge was tallied at around $109.7 million.

The company also spent high amounts on what might normally be niche expenses. The complex's "central plant" -- housing fuel cells, backup generators, water storage, and a substation, among other things -- cost at least $35.6 million, while a dedicated fitness center was priced over $16.7 million.




The Glendenning Barn, a relocated historical structure, came in at $360,000. The company has repurposed it to store maintenance and landscaping supplies.

The final price tag for Apple Park has previously been reported around $5 billion, making it one of the most expensive projects on the planet. It was one of the final Apple projects to be touched by former CEO Steve Jobs, who insisted on unusual design traits such as the ring's curved glass exterior. Those have partly been to blame for years-long delays, and indeed while Apple workers have been moving to the new campus since April, construction is still ongoing.
cornchip
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,053member
    Cheap. We blow that on taxpayer funded sports stadiums.
    StrangeDayscyberzombiecincyteeboltsfan17anton zuykovlkruppjbdragondesignrcornchippscooter63
  • Reply 2 of 25
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 5,106member
    eightzero said:
    Cheap. We blow that on taxpayer funded sports stadiums.
    Beat me to it, was going to comment on the same — if Apple were an NFL franchise they’d have expected the city to pay for the new HQ. so whack. 
    lkruppjbdragondesignrcornchippscooter63watto_cobragregg thurman
  • Reply 3 of 25
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 1,923member
    eightzero said:
    Cheap. We blow that on taxpayer funded sports stadiums.
    Beat me to it, was going to comment on the same — if Apple were an NFL franchise they’d have expected the city to pay for the new HQ. so whack. 
    It is pretty whack forcing cities and taxpayers to foot the bill for billionaires to build these stadiums. If teams want new stadiums, pay for it themselves or get the NFL to chip in more. I voted no for the new stadium in San Diego. Screw the Spanos family. 
    jbdragondesignrd_2cornchipgregg thurman
  • Reply 4 of 25
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    @StrangeDays, aren't you going to question why someone would want to look at the permit breakdown of the new HQ? LOL

    eightzero said:
    Cheap. We blow that on taxpayer funded sports stadiums.
    Beat me to it, was going to comment on the same — if Apple were an NFL franchise they’d have expected the city to pay for the new HQ. so whack. 
    It is pretty whack forcing cities and taxpayers to foot the bill for billionaires to build these stadiums. If teams want new stadiums, pay for it themselves or get the NFL to chip in more. I voted no for the new stadium in San Diego. Screw the Spanos family. 
    Using incentives to generate revenues is no different than anything else in the free market. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Apple (or a sport's team) looking for tax breaks and other benefits for bringing business to a city. The problem is when there are underhanded deals being made by individuals to benefit themselves without regard for the municipality or its people, resulting in a net loss for the city and its taxpayers. Apple staying in Cupertino seems like a good deal for Cupertino.


    edited October 2017
  • Reply 5 of 25
    neilmneilm Posts: 531member
    If the #4 office building cost $115M, and a pair of parking structures $114M, then it seems wildly unlikely the the elaborate main ring — with its circumference of a full mile! — came to a mere $428M (all figures rounded to the nearest million).
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 25
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    neilm said:
    If the #4 office building cost $115M, and a pair of parking structures $114M, then it seems wildly unlikely the the elaborate main ring — with its circumference of a full mile! — came to a mere $428M (all figures rounded to the nearest million).
    That #4 "Office Building" is their R&D facility so I can see how it could have a higher sqft cost than their other office buildings. We also can't look just at the footprint, but the number of floors, including underground parking and offices. I wonder if that R&D facility is also using more state of the art tech, like melded window panes with subsonic actuators to prevent long-range audio equipment from potentially listening in on conversations.
    jbdragonpatchythepiratecornchippscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 25
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 5,106member
    Soli said:
    @StrangeDays, aren't you going to question why someone would want to look at the permit breakdown of the new HQ? LOL
    Not at all. Tho I still don't understand what your boner for whether Apple had an occupancy permit filed for their iPhone event was about. I think the chance of them doing the event without a legacy occupancy permit was between nil and zero.
    cornchippscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 25
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,194member
    eightzero said:
    Cheap. We blow that on taxpayer funded sports stadiums.
    Beat me to it, was going to comment on the same — if Apple were an NFL franchise they’d have expected the city to pay for the new HQ. so whack. 
    It is pretty whack forcing cities and taxpayers to foot the bill for billionaires to build these stadiums. If teams want new stadiums, pay for it themselves or get the NFL to chip in more. I voted no for the new stadium in San Diego. Screw the Spanos family. 
    I think you’d change your mind if it meant keeping thousands of jobs in your city. Midwestern cites are currently falling all over themselves to get Amazon to build its new headquarters in their neck of the woods because it means jobs, jobs, and more jobs. NFL teams and their stadiums employ many hundreds of people and inject $millions into a community from restaurants to night clubs to hotels with thousands of jobs.
  • Reply 9 of 25
    Soli said:
    @StrangeDays, aren't you going to question why someone would want to look at the permit breakdown of the new HQ? LOL
    Not at all. Tho I still don't understand what your boner for whether Apple had an occupancy permit filed for their iPhone event was about. I think the chance of them doing the event without a legacy occupancy permit was between nil and zero.
    Get over it. You misunderstood his original post and still haven’t gotten over it. If your wife asks if you’ve picked up dinner, do you scream at her for suggesting you might starve the children?
    Soli
  • Reply 10 of 25
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 1,923member
    Soli said:
    @StrangeDays, aren't you going to question why someone would want to look at the permit breakdown of the new HQ?

    eightzero said:
    Cheap. We blow that on taxpayer funded sports stadiums.
    Beat me to it, was going to comment on the same — if Apple were an NFL franchise they’d have expected the city to pay for the new HQ. so whack. 
    It is pretty whack forcing cities and taxpayers to foot the bill for billionaires to build these stadiums. If teams want new stadiums, pay for it themselves or get the NFL to chip in more. I voted no for the new stadium in San Diego. Screw the Spanos family. 
    Using incentives to generate revenues is no different than anything else in the free market. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Apple (or a sport's team) looking for tax breaks and other benefits for bringing business to a city. The problem is when there are underhanded deals being made by individuals to benefit themselves without regard for the municipality or its people, resulting in a net loss for the city and its taxpayers. Apple staying in Cupertino seems like a good deal for Cupertino.


    I have no issues with cities giving tax breaks but the deals done with the Chargers and the city of San Diego were a complete disaster for the city. The list of disasters is long. The ticket guarantee, the renovation of Qualcomm in 1997, etc. Looks what's happening in Santa Clara with the 49ers new stadium. That's turned into a complete nightmare for the fans and the city of Santa Clara. At the end of the day, NFL teams don't bring that much to places that are already a top tourist destination such as San Diego. It's not worth the risk losing tourist dollars over what would have been a 17% hotel tax to build a new stadium. 
    jbdragonviclauyyc
  • Reply 11 of 25
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 1,923member
    lkrupp said:
    eightzero said:
    Cheap. We blow that on taxpayer funded sports stadiums.
    Beat me to it, was going to comment on the same — if Apple were an NFL franchise they’d have expected the city to pay for the new HQ. so whack. 
    It is pretty whack forcing cities and taxpayers to foot the bill for billionaires to build these stadiums. If teams want new stadiums, pay for it themselves or get the NFL to chip in more. I voted no for the new stadium in San Diego. Screw the Spanos family. 
    I think you’d change your mind if it meant keeping thousands of jobs in your city. Midwestern cites are currently falling all over themselves to get Amazon to build its new headquarters in their neck of the woods because it means jobs, jobs, and more jobs. NFL teams and their stadiums employ many hundreds of people and inject $millions into a community from restaurants to night clubs to hotels with thousands of jobs.
    For a place like the Midwest, I can see that. For a place like here in San Diego, no. UC San Diego did a study last year and they claim the city is only losing out on about 1,600 local jobs with the Chargers leaving. UC San Diego estimated the Chargers bring in about $126 million to the local economy. San Diego won't have difficulty absorbing that loss. The majority of the economy here is the defense industry, tourism, and tech industry. With the rapid rise in high tech companies here, San Diego is actually outpacing the state and country in GDP. The Chargers leaving isn't much of a loss imo. 
  • Reply 12 of 25
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    Soli said:
    @StrangeDays, aren't you going to question why someone would want to look at the permit breakdown of the new HQ? LOL
    Not at all. Tho I still don't understand what your boner for whether Apple had an occupancy permit filed for their iPhone event was about. I think the chance of them doing the event without a legacy occupancy permit was between nil and zero.
    As previously noted, it's the same "boner" I have for this permit, all the original plans, all the images and drone videos of the construction, inside information on the companies and technologies used, and pretty much everything else, which includes patents and even the dozens of prototypes for iPhones that came out during the Samsung trial. For reasons I can't fathom, me wanting to see the permit so I could glean some interesting data from it was read by you as an accusation that Apple had no permit and was doing something illegal, and yet if I say I want to see Duncan Sinfeild's next drone video of the Apple Park—and I check every day for it—you wouldn't assume that I think Apple is up to no good with their construction and landscaping efforts.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 13 of 25
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    Soli said:
    @StrangeDays, aren't you going to question why someone would want to look at the permit breakdown of the new HQ?

    eightzero said:
    Cheap. We blow that on taxpayer funded sports stadiums.
    Beat me to it, was going to comment on the same — if Apple were an NFL franchise they’d have expected the city to pay for the new HQ. so whack. 
    It is pretty whack forcing cities and taxpayers to foot the bill for billionaires to build these stadiums. If teams want new stadiums, pay for it themselves or get the NFL to chip in more. I voted no for the new stadium in San Diego. Screw the Spanos family. 
    Using incentives to generate revenues is no different than anything else in the free market. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Apple (or a sport's team) looking for tax breaks and other benefits for bringing business to a city. The problem is when there are underhanded deals being made by individuals to benefit themselves without regard for the municipality or its people, resulting in a net loss for the city and its taxpayers. Apple staying in Cupertino seems like a good deal for Cupertino.


    I have no issues with cities giving tax breaks but the deals done with the Chargers and the city of San Diego were a complete disaster for the city. The list of disasters is long. The ticket guarantee, the renovation of Qualcomm in 1997, etc. Looks what's happening in Santa Clara with the 49ers new stadium. That's turned into a complete nightmare for the fans and the city of Santa Clara. At the end of the day, NFL teams don't bring that much to places that are already a top tourist destination such as San Diego. It's not worth the risk losing tourist dollars over what would have been a 17% hotel tax to build a new stadium. 
    Sure, and I appreciate people like you voting no against unfair deals that will bleed your community. There's clearly a very wide happy medium that will benefits the city, residents, team owners, and players, but it's an unfair game in most cases, at this point.

    Perhaps we need professionals to act as middlemen for these negotiations is the cities can't handle it. You pay them a percentage but they in turn make sure you get a deal that will generate a net value for your community within x-years.
    edited October 2017 jbdragonboltsfan17
  • Reply 14 of 25
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,478moderator
    Did I miss the sum total being indicated in the article, or was it intentionally left for each reader to add up the numbers for themselves?  Sheesh.
  • Reply 15 of 25
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,194member
    Did I miss the sum total being indicated in the article, or was it intentionally left for each reader to add up the numbers for themselves?  Sheesh.
    Building permits are just figures pulled out of someone’s ass at the time. They don’t reflect what something actually cost in the final accounting. There are design changes, cost overruns, inflation over period of time, you name it. Now there will be an appraisal for property tax purposes and Apple will report what they spent for Apple Park on their financial reports.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 16 of 25
    427.5 million dollars is abbreviated $427.5mm, not $427.5m. 

    $427.5m actually means $427,500.  
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 17 of 25
    427.5 million dollars is abbreviated $427.5mm, not $427.5m. 

    $427.5m actually means $427,500.  
    You assertion is pure nonsense. 'M', 'MM', 'm', 'mm', and 'mn.' are all correct, depending on context and country. 

    Look it up, if you care. 
    Soli
  • Reply 18 of 25
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,478moderator
    lkrupp said:
    Did I miss the sum total being indicated in the article, or was it intentionally left for each reader to add up the numbers for themselves?  Sheesh.
    Building permits are just figures pulled out of someone’s ass at the time. They don’t reflect what something actually cost in the final accounting. There are design changes, cost overruns, inflation over period of time, you name it. Now there will be an appraisal for property tax purposes and Apple will report what they spent for Apple Park on their financial reports.
    And yet these individual numbers are being reported here, estimates as they are.  But not the total ‘estimate.’  Seems like that would be just as interesting as the individual building estimates.  Well, it’s morning here now and I’m awake, so I guess I’ll add them up.  $1.157 billion for all the buildings called out in the graphic, roughly summed up in my head.  That’s a fair bit short of $5 billion.  Must be some expensive landscaping. 
    edited October 2017 anantksundarampscooter63macxpress
  • Reply 19 of 25
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    lkrupp said:
    Did I miss the sum total being indicated in the article, or was it intentionally left for each reader to add up the numbers for themselves?  Sheesh.
    Building permits are just figures pulled out of someone’s ass at the time. They don’t reflect what something actually cost in the final accounting. There are design changes, cost overruns, inflation over period of time, you name it. Now there will be an appraisal for property tax purposes and Apple will report what they spent for Apple Park on their financial reports.
    And yet these individual numbers are being reported here, estimates as they are.  But not the total ‘estimate.’  Seems like that would be just as interesting as the individual building estimates.  Well, it’s morning here now and I’m awake, so I guess I’ll add them up.  $1.157 billion for all the buildings called out in the graphic, roughly summed up in my head.  That’s a fair bit short of $5 billion.  Must be some expensive landscaping. 
    Even if the numbers stated are correct they really don't say exactly what they cover. Maybe that's  just the fees for certain aspects of the construction. Would that include all the server, PCs, phones, desks, chairs, etc? Would it even include the solar panels on the main building and parking garages if they don't break out the fuel cell batteries between the parking garage and the highway? If it doesn't count those other things would it then count the glass panels which were sourced from Germany and while needed for completing the structure aren't needed for the structure to stand?

    The link below has some great close up picks of the glass during construction.

    https://www.cultofmac.com/413914/up-close-with-worlds-largest-piece-of-curved-glass-at-apple-hq/
  • Reply 20 of 25
    ..wow, Mirage cost more than that back in the 80s. Bellagio was $1.2B more in the 90s. Respect restored (assuming I believe the number shown in the County records, which I don't rofl).
Sign In or Register to comment.