There is glass that takes care of this, in addition to double and triple panes with inert gas or vacuum. There are thin plastic sheets that prevent over 80 of ultraviolet and infra red penetration also. This isn't a problem these days. And then there will be shade trees, from what we can see from the drawings. This building is just four stories tall, so that will be doable.
The render all seems to show overhang to provide shade...as in the glass is set back into the structure quite a ways. You'll get more direct winter sun but less summer sun because of the angle.
There's an artist rendition at the 5:32 and 7:11 point.
Since Apple said that they grow like a weed, they should eliminate all of the trees in the middle of the spaceship and grow weed there instead. It could be the world's finest weed garden, and the Apple campus would smell lovely and it would also serve as a relaxing park, unlike no others. Steve Jobs doesn't like smoking, so each office would have a personal Volcano installed. Of course, this idea wouldn't be 100% legal just yet, so perhaps in the future sometime.
Haha, maybe they should try to follow the example of the Vatican and create their own sovereign city-state. Then they could create their own laws! lol
Me, I'd have asked if their proposed conference center could hold WWDC and if not if they'd be willing to make it bigger in exchange for some tax breaks specifically on revenue for that structure if leased for other users when not being used by Apple.
If you watched the presentation you'll have noticed that there was concern about how much additional transport stress the building would create (answer not much). Making a 5000 person conference center and having it used for any serious proportion of the time would require MASSIVE transport infrastructure improvements.
Quote:
I probably would have asked about light rail access if none exists to that complex to relieve I-280 traffic and maybe discuss a staged work day so there isn't 13,000 people trying to all get in there between 8-9AM.
Light rail access from where? Cupertino itself doesn't have any light rail. There's nothing to connect to.
Quote:
My other concern if I were on that council would be should Apple fail WTH you do with a huge monolithic building? That maze of office buildings can be leased out individually with excess mothballed or demo'd but I doubt the 12K building would be viable at 25% occupancy.
Most very large office buildings have multiple tenants, it's not that big a problem. Often even buildings with notionally a single occupant such as the pentagon are so thoroughly subdivided that they may as well be multiple occupant. A firm like Apple that works so hard to maintain its secrets will definitely have plenty of internal subdivisions.
And the apartment complex in the corner is not for sale?
Can you say eminent domain for Cupertino's largest taxpayer?
Eminent Domain is a rule that only a government can enforce, and can only enforce for the benefit of "the people" not a corporation. Most of the time that it's actually used, it's a quasi-fascist kind of government that's doing the enforcing.
Do you really want to be living in a world where a corporation can pay a government to force it's citizens to move out of the corporation's way? Granted some place like China are like this, but the majority of the world at least gives lip service to democracy and the sanctity of the home.
I've been wondering for some time what Apple was going to do with that campus. It appeared to me to be so much land for so many new employees that Apple was going to enter some entirely new businesses. But I didn't realize that Apple had so many employees "off campus" in rented properties.
I think the idea of having just one office building on this campus, hiding much of the garage space (although how do you get thousands of people in and out of an underground garage efficiently?) and increasing the amount of green is absolutely brilliant. But Jobs played a few of his usual games as well: first he said "there's only going to be one building". But then there's also going to be the 2nd garage, the testing areas, the gym, the auditorium, the power plant, etc.
According to the diagram, the above-ground parking facility will be on the north side of 280. But Apple also owns the land on the south side of 280. Wonder what they'll do with that or whether they'll decide they don't need it and will attempt to sell it.
Then Jobs spoke about the fact that it will probably be self-powered, using the grid as a backup. But he didn't mention whether or not it would actually be LEED certified and since he didn't mention it, I doubt that it will be.
And there will be some negative impacts: while Apple is keeping the current campus (although will the employees who stay there feel less slighted in some way?), they'd be leaving all of their rental properties. That's going to put an awful lot of space on the market at one time and might erode Cupertino's tax revenues for a period.
Also, while I understand Steve's reluctance as the largest employer and taxpayer in Cupertino to give more (like the free WiFi, although wouldn't ubiquitous WiFi in Cupertino also help Apple?), would it really be such a big deal to open a store in Cupertino? Steve seemed insulted to even be asked. Even if it didn't make a lot of money, sometimes it's worth caving on a few issues. If a big store wouldn't make money, they can open a smaller, mall-type store. And even though Apple pays lots of taxes, there's nothing wrong with Apple also donating to the community. Barons of the past built universities, museums, libraries, parks, etc.
Apple should donate equipment to the local public school system. If it improved the education of the local community, it would benefit Apple in the long term in terms of being able to hire quality workers locally and it would also get people hooked into the Apple eco-system at an early age. They could give the schools discontinued models when new models are announced. And Apple could deduct the value as another tax break anyway.
I'm sure this project will be even more derided than the cube on the Fifth Avenue store. People will be talking about "Steve's spaceship" forever. But it is brilliant. I have to wonder whether the single round office building was Steve's idea or an architect's idea. And I sincerely hope that Steve is around and healthy to see it completed and opened.
If you watched the presentation you'll have noticed that there was concern about how much additional transport stress the building would create (answer not much). Making a 5000 person conference center and having it used for any serious proportion of the time would require MASSIVE transport infrastructure improvements.
He said in the presentation that the proposed conference centre would be large enough to hold WWDC... or at least that is what I heard. He said that he'd like to hold conferences there instead of having to hold them in San Francisco as they did the other day.
Google has like a cluster of 4 units. eBay has 5 boxes supplying 15% of their power needs. And that's with 1st gen units without recapturing waste heat. Current efficiency is around 45%...only a tad higher than other competing industrial fuel cells. If they can recycle the waste heat and regenerate fuel they can drive that efficiency up to 70%.
Looking at the Apple plans they have a fairly large space allocated (building sized). Far more than 5-6 units. They can use a mixture of bloom boxes and conventional gas turbine but I suspect that they're far more likely to use Bloom boxes and add heat recapturing technology to drive efficiencies up.
Given that this complex isn't going up tomorrow my guess would be that they've looked at expected improvements in on-site energy generation (whether fuel cells or gas turbine) and concluded that by the time the facility goes live there will be 1-2 more generations of improvement. As long as the tax credits continue the likelihood is that it will be economically viable in that context AND it provides guaranteed power...a valuable consideration given California's grid and the probability that California will go nuke free because of Fukushima.
That'll put a 4,000 MW hole in their power generation capability.
As for solar, there may be some thin-film solar around the complex but it can't provide the energy density required.
The way the building is shaped and with all the glass, the rooftop garden in the middle, etc. ... I would doubt that this thing will need much power at all.
It certainly looks like a passive heating/cooling design and far more energy efficient than the average building. It seems unlikely they will have to pay to heat it, or ventilate it, or clean the air. We are just talking electric lights and computers mostly.
Eminent Domain is a rule that only a government can enforce, and can only enforce for the benefit of "the people" not a corporation. Most of the time that it's actually used, it's a quasi-fascist kind of government that's doing the enforcing.
Do you really want to be living in a world where a corporation can pay a government to force it's citizens to move out of the corporation's way? Granted some place like China are like this, but the majority of the world at least gives lip service to democracy and the sanctity of the home.
Actually, eminent domain is being increasingly used by local governments to force people or companies out to support other private developers. IMO, this should be illegal, but it is happening. One place it is happening is in Flushing, NY, near the Mets baseball stadium, where the City is forcing out hundreds of small car repair places so that new expensive condos and yet another shopping mall can be built. A foolish notion, IMO, considering that other new condos recently built nearby are having a tough time selling.
It's one thing to force business out for a new public hospital, school or even a highway. It's quite another to force them out to benefit large real estate interests.
But this is all besides the point. Cupertino wouldn't have used eminent domain to force those apartments out even if Apple had asked them to and Apple didn't ask. After all, if Apple is truly increasing the number of employees - and Steve contradicted himself on that point, first stating that this would brings lots of new well-off tax payers to the area, then stating at the end that it wouldn't really increase employment by that much - those people will need housing and you wouldn't want to destroy existing housing.
Building that use solar around the world don't house nearly as many people as this one will, and don't use nearly as much power. Solar is very inefficient, and terribly expensive at this time. It's also unreliable, and requires vast backup for evenings, and times when the sun isn't shining throughout the clouds and rain.
None of which are arguments for why it cannot be used to augment your electricity source. It's not an either/or issue.
We just had panels installed on our residence in California and went through all the paperwork. I've also attended PG&E classes that cover all the incentives and regulations. California has one of the most generous feed-in tariffs for commercial installations, and the payback period now is under 15 years for all but the most extravagant systems.
I'm not suggesting Apple should build something that looks like hell for the sake of optimizing solar capture, but it would have been encouraging to see anything at all. If Apple had promoted some component of solar energy in their plans --even if it only contributes to a small fraction of their total load-- other companies building their headquarters might be inspired to do the same. We're well past the point where this should be some sort of 'experimental' effort.
Quote:
We have to succumb to the fact that technology isn't where we would like it to be yet. Perhaps in ten to twenty years, it will be different.
No, it works right here and now. There are huge megawatt solar installations in Spain and in other countries that prioritize such things, and they are paying themselves back just like a gas or coal-fired power plant. If everyone waits 'another ten or twenty years' we might as well admit that we are incapable of making technological progress because we don't have the will to do so. Should Apple have waited longer to release the iPhone because conventional wisdom said such a product could never be done back in 2007?
... while I understand Steve's reluctance as the largest employer and taxpayer in Cupertino to give more (like the free WiFi, although wouldn't ubiquitous WiFi in Cupertino also help Apple?), would it really be such a big deal to open a store in Cupertino? Steve seemed insulted to even be asked. Even if it didn't make a lot of money, sometimes it's worth caving on a few issues. ...
Steve *should* be embarrassed.
More to the point, the councilwoman who asked the question should be ashamed. This isn't the middle ages. The idea of "giving" something to the city council or the city in order to get a break on the building or to get approval is actually quite *illegal* despite it happening all the time.
I'm guessing you are naive enough, and young enough to perhaps just not know this, but Steve is 100% right (again). Bartering for planning approval or the "favour" of the council is illegal, wrong, and definitely unseemly. The council woman kind of laughed off his response almost to suggest that her request was itself supposed to be a joke, but you could tell she was semi-serious. I'm sure she didn't mean to be on tape asking for a gratuity (even though she basically is).
Actually, eminent domain is being increasingly used by local governments to force people or companies out to support other private developers.
Indeed it is, Kelo vs New London gave states the right to do just that, but there was huge popular disgust with the ruling and as a result many states passed laws against it.
(from wiki)
Subsequently, Proposition 99 passed in the June 2008 election. It amends the [California] state constitution to prohibit (subject to some exceptions):
"state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence [if the owner has occupied the residence for at least one year], as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity."
So even if Steve had wanted to be evil, and even if Cupertino had wanted to let him, California Law wouldn't.
None of which are arguments for why it cannot be used to augment your electricity source. It's not an either/or issue.
Does anyone on the forum actually know what Steve meant by saying natural gas and "other means"? Maybe solar is included in these plans to augment the nat gas power source. Just saying...
Actually, eminent domain is being increasingly used by local governments to force people or companies out to support other private developers. IMO, this should be illegal, but it is happening. One place it is happening is in Flushing, NY, near the Mets baseball stadium, where the City is forcing out hundreds of small car repair places so that new expensive condos and yet another shopping mall can be built. A foolish notion, IMO, considering that other new condos recently built nearby are having a tough time selling.
It's one thing to force business out for a new public hospital, school or even a highway. It's quite another to force them out to benefit large real estate interests.
But this is all besides the point. Cupertino wouldn't have used eminent domain to force those apartments out even if Apple had asked them to and Apple didn't ask. After all, if Apple is truly increasing the number of employees - and Steve contradicted himself on that point, first stating that this would brings lots of new well-off tax payers to the area, then stating at the end that it wouldn't really increase employment by that much - those people will need housing and you wouldn't want to destroy existing housing.
I agree that it's an academic argument and that Cupertino wouldn't do it. I was just pointing out the moral/legal issue.
Eminent Domain rules are definitely for governments only as we both agree. I'm sad to hear that the US has got to that point, but in my country the laws on this are still obeyed generally speaking. A company that wants to put up a building like this needs to buy the land, the city won't do it for them.
It's worse than just breaking the eminent domain "rules" when this kind of thing happens too because what you essentially have is the corporation *paying* the government (usually in the form of some invisible kickbacks), to invoke the governments power over the people, to violate the rights of the individuals involved.
Needless to say this is textbook Fascism. It's almost the exact definition of Fascism.
The render all seems to show overhang to provide shade...as in the glass is set back into the structure quite a ways. You'll get more direct winter sun but less summer sun because of the angle.
There's an artist rendition at the 5:32 and 7:11 point.
Being that the sun can appear low over the horizon, that looks to be a partial solution, just being effective during the mid day. But every design decision helps.
Does anyone on the forum actually know what Steve meant by saying natural gas and "other means"? Maybe solar is included in these plans to augment the nat gas power source. Just saying...
Apple has learned how to tap the power of photosynthesis to provide electricity. As photosynthesis is 99% efficient in its conversion of energy, the many, MANY trees at the new campus can afford a little hit on power to serve Apple's needs.
Eminent Domain is a rule that only a government can enforce, and can only enforce for the benefit of "the people" not a corporation. Most of the time that it's actually used, it's a quasi-fascist kind of government that's doing the enforcing.
Do you really want to be living in a world where a corporation can pay a government to force it's citizens to move out of the corporation's way? Granted some place like China are like this, but the majority of the world at least gives lip service to democracy and the sanctity of the home.
Just to clarify a bit, only if the corporation is for essentially 'private' use... if that makes sense.
Remember the big ta-do from the supreme court few years ago? Allowed a mall(ie developers) to use ED to get land. Ruling was because the mall would be for 'public use'.
See this all time really. Economic recover zones and the like.
All depends on who's getting gored if they like ED or not I guess.
In this case... doubt Apple could claim the land/facitliies 'primary' purpose is to be used by the public. Unless... as others have mentioned they make a public park or open public education classes etc. Or they could have claimed that they needed that land for the power plants, and plants would a majority of time feed power back to the grid. But that would take years and public fights etc... look how long it took to get his house permit!
Other huge companies have failed and left their flagship corporate headquarters behind.
A mixed use center like GM's world headquarters with multiple companies, hotels, etc could continue on should GM leave it. Which GM reportedly was considering.
It still would have been a huge body blow to Detroit but at least there are other tenants there.
A large cluster of office buildings like what exists in the HP park can be viably leased to a bunch of companies. If the total occupancy is only 25% these could be in the newest buildings while the less economically viable ones are demo'd and replace with something else.
With a large single building half the size of the pentagon (pentagon holds 23K employees)?
It's a valid concern for a Post-Jobs Apple. Apple went from sky's the limit in 1984 with Jobs showing the world the first Macintosh to free-falling in 1995 under Spindler.
Here's a reminder of corporate failures from that time period and I'd say the economic situation is worse than mid-90s.
You hope for the best but should plan for the worst. In this building you likely have to gauge the probability that a new single tenant would appear to occupy the building in the kind of environment which sees Apple leaving Cupertino for whatever reason.
Comments
There is glass that takes care of this, in addition to double and triple panes with inert gas or vacuum. There are thin plastic sheets that prevent over 80 of ultraviolet and infra red penetration also. This isn't a problem these days. And then there will be shade trees, from what we can see from the drawings. This building is just four stories tall, so that will be doable.
The render all seems to show overhang to provide shade...as in the glass is set back into the structure quite a ways. You'll get more direct winter sun but less summer sun because of the angle.
There's an artist rendition at the 5:32 and 7:11 point.
Yeah, definitely a smart move. The owner might just be holding out for more money(?)
This thing will take years to build...I'd hate to be a tenant there.
Since Apple said that they grow like a weed, they should eliminate all of the trees in the middle of the spaceship and grow weed there instead. It could be the world's finest weed garden, and the Apple campus would smell lovely and it would also serve as a relaxing park, unlike no others. Steve Jobs doesn't like smoking, so each office would have a personal Volcano installed. Of course, this idea wouldn't be 100% legal just yet, so perhaps in the future sometime.
Haha, maybe they should try to follow the example of the Vatican and create their own sovereign city-state. Then they could create their own laws! lol
Norman and Steve couldn't help themselves.
Me, I'd have asked if their proposed conference center could hold WWDC and if not if they'd be willing to make it bigger in exchange for some tax breaks specifically on revenue for that structure if leased for other users when not being used by Apple.
If you watched the presentation you'll have noticed that there was concern about how much additional transport stress the building would create (answer not much). Making a 5000 person conference center and having it used for any serious proportion of the time would require MASSIVE transport infrastructure improvements.
I probably would have asked about light rail access if none exists to that complex to relieve I-280 traffic and maybe discuss a staged work day so there isn't 13,000 people trying to all get in there between 8-9AM.
Light rail access from where? Cupertino itself doesn't have any light rail. There's nothing to connect to.
My other concern if I were on that council would be should Apple fail WTH you do with a huge monolithic building? That maze of office buildings can be leased out individually with excess mothballed or demo'd but I doubt the 12K building would be viable at 25% occupancy.
Most very large office buildings have multiple tenants, it's not that big a problem. Often even buildings with notionally a single occupant such as the pentagon are so thoroughly subdivided that they may as well be multiple occupant. A firm like Apple that works so hard to maintain its secrets will definitely have plenty of internal subdivisions.
And the apartment complex in the corner is not for sale?
Can you say eminent domain for Cupertino's largest taxpayer?
Eminent Domain is a rule that only a government can enforce, and can only enforce for the benefit of "the people" not a corporation. Most of the time that it's actually used, it's a quasi-fascist kind of government that's doing the enforcing.
Do you really want to be living in a world where a corporation can pay a government to force it's citizens to move out of the corporation's way? Granted some place like China are like this, but the majority of the world at least gives lip service to democracy and the sanctity of the home.
I think the idea of having just one office building on this campus, hiding much of the garage space (although how do you get thousands of people in and out of an underground garage efficiently?) and increasing the amount of green is absolutely brilliant. But Jobs played a few of his usual games as well: first he said "there's only going to be one building". But then there's also going to be the 2nd garage, the testing areas, the gym, the auditorium, the power plant, etc.
According to the diagram, the above-ground parking facility will be on the north side of 280. But Apple also owns the land on the south side of 280. Wonder what they'll do with that or whether they'll decide they don't need it and will attempt to sell it.
Then Jobs spoke about the fact that it will probably be self-powered, using the grid as a backup. But he didn't mention whether or not it would actually be LEED certified and since he didn't mention it, I doubt that it will be.
And there will be some negative impacts: while Apple is keeping the current campus (although will the employees who stay there feel less slighted in some way?), they'd be leaving all of their rental properties. That's going to put an awful lot of space on the market at one time and might erode Cupertino's tax revenues for a period.
Also, while I understand Steve's reluctance as the largest employer and taxpayer in Cupertino to give more (like the free WiFi, although wouldn't ubiquitous WiFi in Cupertino also help Apple?), would it really be such a big deal to open a store in Cupertino? Steve seemed insulted to even be asked. Even if it didn't make a lot of money, sometimes it's worth caving on a few issues. If a big store wouldn't make money, they can open a smaller, mall-type store. And even though Apple pays lots of taxes, there's nothing wrong with Apple also donating to the community. Barons of the past built universities, museums, libraries, parks, etc.
Apple should donate equipment to the local public school system. If it improved the education of the local community, it would benefit Apple in the long term in terms of being able to hire quality workers locally and it would also get people hooked into the Apple eco-system at an early age. They could give the schools discontinued models when new models are announced. And Apple could deduct the value as another tax break anyway.
I'm sure this project will be even more derided than the cube on the Fifth Avenue store. People will be talking about "Steve's spaceship" forever. But it is brilliant. I have to wonder whether the single round office building was Steve's idea or an architect's idea. And I sincerely hope that Steve is around and healthy to see it completed and opened.
If you watched the presentation you'll have noticed that there was concern about how much additional transport stress the building would create (answer not much). Making a 5000 person conference center and having it used for any serious proportion of the time would require MASSIVE transport infrastructure improvements.
He said in the presentation that the proposed conference centre would be large enough to hold WWDC... or at least that is what I heard. He said that he'd like to hold conferences there instead of having to hold them in San Francisco as they did the other day.
NEWSFLASH: Steve Jobs reveals to council that Apple just loves Windows
You have to admit, it's quite a Vista.
Google has like a cluster of 4 units. eBay has 5 boxes supplying 15% of their power needs. And that's with 1st gen units without recapturing waste heat. Current efficiency is around 45%...only a tad higher than other competing industrial fuel cells. If they can recycle the waste heat and regenerate fuel they can drive that efficiency up to 70%.
Looking at the Apple plans they have a fairly large space allocated (building sized). Far more than 5-6 units. They can use a mixture of bloom boxes and conventional gas turbine but I suspect that they're far more likely to use Bloom boxes and add heat recapturing technology to drive efficiencies up.
Given that this complex isn't going up tomorrow my guess would be that they've looked at expected improvements in on-site energy generation (whether fuel cells or gas turbine) and concluded that by the time the facility goes live there will be 1-2 more generations of improvement. As long as the tax credits continue the likelihood is that it will be economically viable in that context AND it provides guaranteed power...a valuable consideration given California's grid and the probability that California will go nuke free because of Fukushima.
That'll put a 4,000 MW hole in their power generation capability.
As for solar, there may be some thin-film solar around the complex but it can't provide the energy density required.
The way the building is shaped and with all the glass, the rooftop garden in the middle, etc. ... I would doubt that this thing will need much power at all.
It certainly looks like a passive heating/cooling design and far more energy efficient than the average building. It seems unlikely they will have to pay to heat it, or ventilate it, or clean the air. We are just talking electric lights and computers mostly.
Eminent Domain is a rule that only a government can enforce, and can only enforce for the benefit of "the people" not a corporation. Most of the time that it's actually used, it's a quasi-fascist kind of government that's doing the enforcing.
Do you really want to be living in a world where a corporation can pay a government to force it's citizens to move out of the corporation's way? Granted some place like China are like this, but the majority of the world at least gives lip service to democracy and the sanctity of the home.
Actually, eminent domain is being increasingly used by local governments to force people or companies out to support other private developers. IMO, this should be illegal, but it is happening. One place it is happening is in Flushing, NY, near the Mets baseball stadium, where the City is forcing out hundreds of small car repair places so that new expensive condos and yet another shopping mall can be built. A foolish notion, IMO, considering that other new condos recently built nearby are having a tough time selling.
It's one thing to force business out for a new public hospital, school or even a highway. It's quite another to force them out to benefit large real estate interests.
But this is all besides the point. Cupertino wouldn't have used eminent domain to force those apartments out even if Apple had asked them to and Apple didn't ask. After all, if Apple is truly increasing the number of employees - and Steve contradicted himself on that point, first stating that this would brings lots of new well-off tax payers to the area, then stating at the end that it wouldn't really increase employment by that much - those people will need housing and you wouldn't want to destroy existing housing.
Building that use solar around the world don't house nearly as many people as this one will, and don't use nearly as much power. Solar is very inefficient, and terribly expensive at this time. It's also unreliable, and requires vast backup for evenings, and times when the sun isn't shining throughout the clouds and rain.
None of which are arguments for why it cannot be used to augment your electricity source. It's not an either/or issue.
We just had panels installed on our residence in California and went through all the paperwork. I've also attended PG&E classes that cover all the incentives and regulations. California has one of the most generous feed-in tariffs for commercial installations, and the payback period now is under 15 years for all but the most extravagant systems.
I'm not suggesting Apple should build something that looks like hell for the sake of optimizing solar capture, but it would have been encouraging to see anything at all. If Apple had promoted some component of solar energy in their plans --even if it only contributes to a small fraction of their total load-- other companies building their headquarters might be inspired to do the same. We're well past the point where this should be some sort of 'experimental' effort.
We have to succumb to the fact that technology isn't where we would like it to be yet. Perhaps in ten to twenty years, it will be different.
No, it works right here and now. There are huge megawatt solar installations in Spain and in other countries that prioritize such things, and they are paying themselves back just like a gas or coal-fired power plant. If everyone waits 'another ten or twenty years' we might as well admit that we are incapable of making technological progress because we don't have the will to do so. Should Apple have waited longer to release the iPhone because conventional wisdom said such a product could never be done back in 2007?
... while I understand Steve's reluctance as the largest employer and taxpayer in Cupertino to give more (like the free WiFi, although wouldn't ubiquitous WiFi in Cupertino also help Apple?), would it really be such a big deal to open a store in Cupertino? Steve seemed insulted to even be asked. Even if it didn't make a lot of money, sometimes it's worth caving on a few issues. ...
Steve *should* be embarrassed.
More to the point, the councilwoman who asked the question should be ashamed. This isn't the middle ages. The idea of "giving" something to the city council or the city in order to get a break on the building or to get approval is actually quite *illegal* despite it happening all the time.
I'm guessing you are naive enough, and young enough to perhaps just not know this, but Steve is 100% right (again). Bartering for planning approval or the "favour" of the council is illegal, wrong, and definitely unseemly. The council woman kind of laughed off his response almost to suggest that her request was itself supposed to be a joke, but you could tell she was semi-serious. I'm sure she didn't mean to be on tape asking for a gratuity (even though she basically is).
Actually, eminent domain is being increasingly used by local governments to force people or companies out to support other private developers.
Indeed it is, Kelo vs New London gave states the right to do just that, but there was huge popular disgust with the ruling and as a result many states passed laws against it.
(from wiki)
Subsequently, Proposition 99 passed in the June 2008 election. It amends the [California] state constitution to prohibit (subject to some exceptions):
"state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence [if the owner has occupied the residence for at least one year], as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity."
So even if Steve had wanted to be evil, and even if Cupertino had wanted to let him, California Law wouldn't.
None of which are arguments for why it cannot be used to augment your electricity source. It's not an either/or issue.
Does anyone on the forum actually know what Steve meant by saying natural gas and "other means"? Maybe solar is included in these plans to augment the nat gas power source. Just saying...
Actually, eminent domain is being increasingly used by local governments to force people or companies out to support other private developers. IMO, this should be illegal, but it is happening. One place it is happening is in Flushing, NY, near the Mets baseball stadium, where the City is forcing out hundreds of small car repair places so that new expensive condos and yet another shopping mall can be built. A foolish notion, IMO, considering that other new condos recently built nearby are having a tough time selling.
It's one thing to force business out for a new public hospital, school or even a highway. It's quite another to force them out to benefit large real estate interests.
But this is all besides the point. Cupertino wouldn't have used eminent domain to force those apartments out even if Apple had asked them to and Apple didn't ask. After all, if Apple is truly increasing the number of employees - and Steve contradicted himself on that point, first stating that this would brings lots of new well-off tax payers to the area, then stating at the end that it wouldn't really increase employment by that much - those people will need housing and you wouldn't want to destroy existing housing.
I agree that it's an academic argument and that Cupertino wouldn't do it. I was just pointing out the moral/legal issue.
Eminent Domain rules are definitely for governments only as we both agree. I'm sad to hear that the US has got to that point, but in my country the laws on this are still obeyed generally speaking. A company that wants to put up a building like this needs to buy the land, the city won't do it for them.
It's worse than just breaking the eminent domain "rules" when this kind of thing happens too because what you essentially have is the corporation *paying* the government (usually in the form of some invisible kickbacks), to invoke the governments power over the people, to violate the rights of the individuals involved.
Needless to say this is textbook Fascism. It's almost the exact definition of Fascism.
The render all seems to show overhang to provide shade...as in the glass is set back into the structure quite a ways. You'll get more direct winter sun but less summer sun because of the angle.
There's an artist rendition at the 5:32 and 7:11 point.
Being that the sun can appear low over the horizon, that looks to be a partial solution, just being effective during the mid day. But every design decision helps.
Does anyone on the forum actually know what Steve meant by saying natural gas and "other means"? Maybe solar is included in these plans to augment the nat gas power source. Just saying...
Apple has learned how to tap the power of photosynthesis to provide electricity. As photosynthesis is 99% efficient in its conversion of energy, the many, MANY trees at the new campus can afford a little hit on power to serve Apple's needs.
Eminent Domain is a rule that only a government can enforce, and can only enforce for the benefit of "the people" not a corporation. Most of the time that it's actually used, it's a quasi-fascist kind of government that's doing the enforcing.
Do you really want to be living in a world where a corporation can pay a government to force it's citizens to move out of the corporation's way? Granted some place like China are like this, but the majority of the world at least gives lip service to democracy and the sanctity of the home.
Just to clarify a bit, only if the corporation is for essentially 'private' use... if that makes sense.
Remember the big ta-do from the supreme court few years ago? Allowed a mall(ie developers) to use ED to get land. Ruling was because the mall would be for 'public use'.
See this all time really. Economic recover zones and the like.
All depends on who's getting gored if they like ED or not I guess.
In this case... doubt Apple could claim the land/facitliies 'primary' purpose is to be used by the public. Unless... as others have mentioned they make a public park or open public education classes etc. Or they could have claimed that they needed that land for the power plants, and plants would a majority of time feed power back to the grid. But that would take years and public fights etc... look how long it took to get his house permit!
I don't understand your "other concern" at all.
Other huge companies have failed and left their flagship corporate headquarters behind.
A mixed use center like GM's world headquarters with multiple companies, hotels, etc could continue on should GM leave it. Which GM reportedly was considering.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...-rattner-obama
It still would have been a huge body blow to Detroit but at least there are other tenants there.
A large cluster of office buildings like what exists in the HP park can be viably leased to a bunch of companies. If the total occupancy is only 25% these could be in the newest buildings while the less economically viable ones are demo'd and replace with something else.
With a large single building half the size of the pentagon (pentagon holds 23K employees)?
It's a valid concern for a Post-Jobs Apple. Apple went from sky's the limit in 1984 with Jobs showing the world the first Macintosh to free-falling in 1995 under Spindler.
Here's a reminder of corporate failures from that time period and I'd say the economic situation is worse than mid-90s.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/23/re...abandoned.html
You hope for the best but should plan for the worst. In this building you likely have to gauge the probability that a new single tenant would appear to occupy the building in the kind of environment which sees Apple leaving Cupertino for whatever reason.