Apple looks to offload property for Stockholm store blocked by popular resistance

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    I’m actually a bit pleased that Apple isn’t forcing the issue or trying to find a resolution. I felt that they previously would compromise too much trying to please people who can’t be pleased.

    Whether it’s unfounded fears of a data centre or a bustling shop (in a city! Imagine that) - it’s good that apple have turned the page on this.

    These stores add value to an area, they keep a very high level of foot traffic which has a halo benefit to the area, others invest in an area when they know Apple will be nearby, because they know the foot traffic alone will boost their business.  (Or in the case of data centres, jobs, locally paid taxes and community investment.)

    So if Apple’s new attitude is:  “you know what, fuck it - we’ll go where we are wanted.” Then I think that’s a good thing. 
    Nowhere to invest in the park, and the surrounding businesses don’t really need that halo effect since it’s already one of the more crowded areas. 
    spice-boy
  • Reply 22 of 37
    Apple has a hold on the Swedes by the meatballs. Sell the property to IKEA - oh wait, IKEA can’t stand dealing with their own country either.
  • Reply 23 of 37

    Why would people resist these gorgeous structures?


    My town doesn't even have one of these flagship beauties.

    För att vi är förbannat korkade o inte fattar vårt eget bästa.
    …or in English:
    Because we are damned stupid and don’t even realize what’s best for us + Swedish envy of anything and anybody that is successful.
  • Reply 24 of 37

    Why would people resist these gorgeous structures?


    My town doesn't even have one of these flagship beauties.

    För att vi är förbannat korkade o inte fattar vårt eget bästa.
    …or in English:
    Because we are damned stupid and don’t even realize what’s best for us + Swedish envy of anything and anybody that is successful.
    Having park areas in a city slowly eaten up by commercial interests isn't really in the best interest of the people though.

    Parks must be preserved early on, and keep being protected; or soon there will be no parks at all, and we might as well be living underground.
    propod
  • Reply 25 of 37
    What a bunch of Swedish meatballs.
  • Reply 26 of 37
    What a dreary looking rendering.  You'd think that they'd simulate a nice spring or summer day.
  • Reply 27 of 37
    Renovating historic buildings that have seen better days and may even be in disuse is a better approach for urban goodwill than the "town square" stuff. There's a creepy element to the latter. 
    Yep, that's exactly what they are doing at the Carnegie Library site in DC.
  • Reply 28 of 37
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,449member

    Why would people resist these gorgeous structures?


    My town doesn't even have one of these flagship beauties.

    There's plenty of places where Apple can put a retail store that isn't part of a public space or park.  But having said that, I'd MUCH rather have an Apple Store, with its quality architecture and interior design than a TGI Fridays.     The Stockholm Beauty Council thinks the TGI Fridays is more beautiful than an Apple store?   I bet that the TGI Fridays is not exactly what they had in mind what the permitted cafes and restaurants in public spaces and parks.  

    The TGI Fridays does have outdoor seating, which is nice, but the Apple Store would have been much nicer IMO.   Maybe Apple could have also set up an outdoor seating area with free WiFi and power at each table.   This is what they have now:    
    edited February 9
    TGI.jpg 461.8K
  • Reply 29 of 37
    Apple should have offered to go mostly underground, perhaps with another glass cube.
  • Reply 30 of 37
    What a dreary looking rendering.  You'd think that they'd simulate a nice spring or summer day.
    Bold of you to assume that that isn't a nice summer day in Sweden…
    IreneW
  • Reply 31 of 37
    paul k said:
    Apple should have offered to go mostly underground, perhaps with another glass cube.
    That would look really good; but I'm pretty sure that it would be too expensive in this case, and might even make the subway-people really upset.
  • Reply 32 of 37
    svanstrom said:

    Why would people resist these gorgeous structures?


    My town doesn't even have one of these flagship beauties.

    För att vi är förbannat korkade o inte fattar vårt eget bästa.
    …or in English:
    Because we are damned stupid and don’t even realize what’s best for us + Swedish envy of anything and anybody that is successful.
    Having park areas in a city slowly eaten up by commercial interests isn't really in the best interest of the people though.

    Parks must be preserved early on, and keep being protected; or soon there will be no parks at all, and we might as well be living underground.
    This was the exact same arguments posed against restaurants in Swedish parks a hundred years ago. Yet, you stand here today and defend those establishments against the popular gathering places of our time. Get real, this is not damaging neither the trees nor the atmosphere of the park itself. I rest by my comments above.
  • Reply 33 of 37
    svanstrom said:
    paul k said:
    Apple should have offered to go mostly underground, perhaps with another glass cube.
    That would look really good; but I'm pretty sure that it would be too expensive in this case, and might even make the subway-people really upset.
    Yes, probably. But a hole in the ground would have made the enviro-extremist protestors happy though. They like us all to go back to living in caves.
  • Reply 34 of 37
    svanstrom said:

    Why would people resist these gorgeous structures?


    My town doesn't even have one of these flagship beauties.

    För att vi är förbannat korkade o inte fattar vårt eget bästa.
    …or in English:
    Because we are damned stupid and don’t even realize what’s best for us + Swedish envy of anything and anybody that is successful.
    Having park areas in a city slowly eaten up by commercial interests isn't really in the best interest of the people though.

    Parks must be preserved early on, and keep being protected; or soon there will be no parks at all, and we might as well be living underground.
    This was the exact same arguments posed against restaurants in Swedish parks a hundred years ago. Yet, you stand here today and defend those establishments against the popular gathering places of our time. Get real, this is not damaging neither the trees nor the atmosphere of the park itself. I rest by my comments above.
    If you'd actually been in the area during summer you'd know that what Apple wanted to build actually would have decreased the area used as a public space; where people spend time just relaxing and enjoying the park area.

    That TGIF needs to go, but what Apple wanted to replace it with wasn't right for the place. It would have looked absolutely amazing, but it wouldn't have been right for the area.
  • Reply 35 of 37
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    I realize a 6 million loss on a real estate deal is pocket change for Appje. Seems to me Apple would have all government approvals in order, permits and historical sign offs done before purchasing a property to build on. 
    You have it backwards, Apple is aiming for a $6million dollar profit on the land appreciation since they've owned it.  And real estate doesn't work the way you think it does.  You can't get permits, etc., on property you don't own, nor would a company spend millions on the process with out knowing they control the property in question, risking the property owner selling to someone else or the price rising beyond the point the deal makes financial sense. Finally, property owners would have enormous incentive to jack up the price knowing a company had invested millions and years into it. 
  • Reply 36 of 37
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    I realize a 6 million loss on a real estate deal is pocket change for Appje. Seems to me Apple would have all government approvals in order, permits and historical sign offs done before purchasing a property to build on. 
    You have it backwards, Apple is aiming for a $6million dollar profit on the land appreciation since they've owned it.  And real estate doesn't work the way you think it does.  You can't get permits, etc., on property you don't own, nor would a company spend millions on the process with out knowing they control the property in question, risking the property owner selling to someone else or the price rising beyond the point the deal makes financial sense. Finally, property owners would have enormous incentive to jack up the price knowing a company had invested millions and years into it. 
  • Reply 37 of 37
    macminion said:
    Apple has a hold on the Swedes by the meatballs. Sell the property to IKEA - oh wait, IKEA can’t stand dealing with their own country either.
    Guess what, outside of the USA things are different. Big corporations don't get huge tax break incentives to build anywhere they please and force local governments to hand them prime land because a company like Apple wants to be there. Some comments here are unbelievable (I'll take my ball and go home if you don't let me make my own rules). 
    Sorry Apple, Stockholm's just not that into you. 
    svanstrom
Sign In or Register to comment.