... Don't get me wrong, I think that Apples stores look great, but I think that what makes them look special is more due to their choice of materials rather than their simple, geometric shapes. If Apple hadn't made many of their stores using primarily glass, then nobody would have cared about a cube made out of bricks.
That's their job. Their concern isn't for Apple, it's for the community. Will what Apple is doing hurt or benefit it? That what they have to be concerned about. Having done work for the community board here in my area, I see how opposed they can be to projects. This was one of the friendliest receptions I've ever seen. They asked for little other than what would be expected, and the question about WiFi was tongue in cheek, and who knows, he might have agreed.
Most satisfying.
Fella, I've PUT people in public office. You have no idea who you're talking to.
With that out of the way, I agree this was mild opposition at worst. The council was more or less cowed. But get some perspective: The global economy is sinking. The market's about to crash (yes, again). Anyplace else on Earth would PAY Apple to locate in their community, and pay them well.
Yet Jobs felt compelled to remind these CLOWNS that his company pays taxes, because he's had problems with them before. Apple keeps Cupertino afloat, let's face it. It's not 'tongue in cheek' to ask for free Wi-Fi. It's stupid, tacky, and tasteless.
But hey, tick Jobs off with a 'cute' remark. He has billions of company dollars in the bank and the world at his feet. Go ahead, say something self-serving and stupid. No way he follows through on the veiled threat he felt it was necessary to make about Apple picking up and leaving, right? No way he's thinking about the years-long nightmare he was put through re his personal residence, right? And there's just no way he hears the clock ticking because he does not know if he'll live long enough to see this thing built.... right?
Sure, go ahead. Indulge yourself. Make your cutesy remark. What could happen?
Jobs did mention conferences. He specifically did mention the WWDC, so with over one million square feet in the building, which is wider than you may think, it's likely that they will do their presentations there. Remember that at theWWDc, he apologized for the size of the conference, and states that it was the biggest space they could get. Possibly, they will have more room here. The cafeterior will seat 3,000, so a bigger conference area is certainly possible.
Moscone Center is 2M square feet. Moscone West is obviously a smaller segment of that total space
but covers nearly a block and is three stories above ground.
The issue is that Apple doesn't need Moscone West 365 days a year but wants something bigger than that for a week. Whatever the size, it's unlikely that Apple has structured the 1M sq ft of floor space to be a multi-use conference center.
Something the city might like to have for economic stimulus and would be willing to trade tax revenue to get.
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.
I think your concerns are overdone. There is no doubt that Apple make a number of concessions, because that's always the case.
It's also nice of you to say what Apple should give away. This isn't a state owned company. It shouldn't be required to supplement the state. It's already paying mucho taxes, and that the point of those taxes, to do what you want done.
Steve said that they will leave the other buildings around the city over a period of years. It's just not possible to do it all at once because of the logistics.
Stores have to stand on their own, but we don't know what Apple may do here. It's possible they may open a small one. As far as the WiFi goes, municipal WiFi has been fought all around the country, with the courts usually backing up the private companies. If Apple wanted to give free WiFi, it would likely be tied up in the courts for years, as the IPS's fought it.
The cube on fifth Avenue is not derided at all. Maybe one of two writers don't like it. Big deal. Recently, it's been pointed out that it's become the most photographed landmark in NYC. So much for derision. No doubt there will be a small few who don't like this either. There always are for forward looking ideas. Many of the most famous landmark buildings around the world have their detractors, but really, who cares?
Did people here notice that Apple bought that entire strip of property to the east of the campus? They filled in the indent in the east center, and then added the vertical area to that. I wonder how many more acres that includes?
In addition, talking about the apartment houses, or condo's, or co-ops, or whatever they are, they have just gone up in value by a good bit. While it's true that during construction, the noise will be higher, that will pass, and will be interesting to many, as it's Apple's Hq that's being built, and with such a unique building, and campus, that alone will have people wanting to live there.
Afterwards, those who are lucky enough to have higher apartments that face the campus will have a view that's spectacular, unique, and of a very famous landmark, for that's surely what it will become. As here in NYC, where Central Park apartments command top prices, so will these. And you can be sure that developers around the area will be trying to buy up land so that they can offer living space that oversees the campus, and especially the main building.
This will spark some interesting development in the area, as this becomes a magnet. I've seen it happen before on a smaller scale.
Not to mention that if those lucky enough to own or rent one of these condo's also work for Apple they'll be able to get out of bed 15 minutes before work.
I wonder what the Apple building would have looked like had Apple been able to buy that little residential area. Would the circle have been bigger, or just more centrally positioned?
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.
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.
What he said was that Apple's employees are, for the most part, affluent. He also said that they wouldn't be adding many new employees, but he was talking about that as a percentage; 20%. that would actually be an addition of about 2,500 to 3,500, depending on whether the 12 thousand or the 13 thousand figure would be the final number.
So that's a fair number of new employees, earning good salaries, paying taxes, and buying from city businesses, adding to the payrolls of those businesses as well.
The city will benefit from this both short term, as the campus is being built, with local jobs as well as those coming in from the outside, availing themselves of local services while they work on the campus, and the additional permanent jobs that will be coming in over time after it is built. The number of jobs being added is a lot for a community the size of this one, and the council knows it.
No way he follows through on the veiled threat he felt it was necessary to make about Apple picking up and leaving, right?
It was hardly veiled. And you're right...there are plenty of places that would offer him enough to take the loss on the land (likely if Apple was leaving the land value of what they bought would crater) and come out way ahead.
Apple leaving is something the council needs to consider and try to figure out how to mitigate. Given that Apple isn't asking for tax breaks (at least not publicly at this time) I'd try to figure out how to use this to diversify the tax base and make it a win proposition for both the city and apple.
Asking to be allowed to chip in (via tax breaks) to plus up the new build for mix use seems like one of the few opportunities here.
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.
As I posted before, fitting panels to existing structure can make sense, but with best practice new build it may not. Watch the video on the link I posted a page or so back. You'll see that the final building they case study is out in the desert and while it has tons of solar panels in the campus there aren't any on the buildings themselves, because the buildings have had massive design work into allowing them to be passively cooled in the desert.
You're assuming that a good building will always be made better by slapping photo-voltaic panels onto it, but that's not true. Solar panels directly fixed to a building, will dramatically increase the cooling requirement due to their low albedo. They'll also potentially increase requirement for artificial lighting if they're replacing glass. It's a very complicated multivariate optimization.
Quote:
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.
The Spanish plant that you're referring to isn't photo-voltaic though, it's a solar furnace as are most other large scale high efficiency plants. They make a lot of sense in an unpopulated desert location, but they're not really viable on the Apple campus
Solar has its place, but it isn't a panacea, it's become something of a Shibboleth for a lot of environmentalists though - which can stand in the way of good science and optimal building design.
I wish I could recount some of the stories I heard about the custom architecture of the NeXT campus back in the day, but I don't have time right now.
One aspect of all that glass that I'm not fond of is the heat load from the sun. If not done properly the south-facing rooms all have their blinds drawn most of the time, and the air-conditioning becomes a huge operating cost. I would hope and assume that the architects know all this and compensate accordingly, but I would rather see something in that climate with a lot more shade overhangs.
(I've spent summers in Silicon Valley, and it typically hovers around 80-90 degrees fahrenheit for five months out of the year. Corporate architects and clients often have more design ego than brains, and I don't think Jobs, for all his accomplishments, is above this.)
To get around this, companies (and homes) can plant deciduous plants in front of their sun-facing windows. That way, the leaves fall in the cold months (letting in sunlight) and block the sun in the warm months. But depending on your point of view the view of leaves on the ground is either pleasant or disgusting
But from the renderings, it looks like there's quite a setback between the building and the landscaping. They probably want to show off the architecture...
....Stores have to stand on their own, but we don't know what Apple may do here. It's possible they may open a small one. As far as the WiFi goes, municipal WiFi has been fought all around the country, with the courts usually backing up the private companies. If Apple wanted to give free WiFi, it would likely be tied up in the courts for years, as the IPS's fought it....
Its possible that Apple would get a ton of traffic to a campus store. Think of the tourist etc. I'd stop by. The building alone will be a tourist magnet to get snap shots etc
Now whether Apple would want that... doubt it.
Plus, don't want those Google boys and girls snooping around.
I wonder what the Apple building would have looked like had Apple been able to buy that little residential area.
I wonder if there's a precedent for something like this where Apple offers to rent each unit as it turns over, waiting it out until they eventually occupy 100% of the building? (They could, in turn, offer the apartments to employees as a perk or offset by salary so that it isn't a complete waste of money.) The problem is the apartment building owner knows what they're sitting on and has the upper hand here.
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.
Is the 5th Ave Cube derided? If it is and if this donutian mothership will be, I can't imagine SJ or anyone at Apple could give a flying frk. When the worlds most celebrated buildings were designed and built they weren't 'old', or retro, they were of the day. Many were ahead 'of their day'. Some people don't like modernity, and some people probably prefer the look of a Dell to a Mac. Whatcha gonna do \
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.
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?
You're confusing major solar installations that cost hundreds of millions to the low billions, that charge customers, to Apple's campus. Don't! Google is trying to be green, but their efforts aren't going to do much either. I don't want to see Apple spend tens of millions on solar that will contribute little to their needs.
Over time, we'll see if an installation like solar will pay off for a company the size of Apple. Homeowners are getting some pretty big tax breaks for something that otherwise wouldn't break even for them for twenty years, which is over the lifetime for such installations. The best power source right now is gas. If Apple finds solar to be useful in the coming years, maybe they will try that too. But the inefficiency is so low right now, on the order of 10 to 13%, that it's no more useful than a minor supplement for high density energy users. And even then, the costs are too high. What I'm seeing around the world are demonstration projects on buildings that don't add much to their energy efficiency, and those are mostly office buildings. Apple, as Steve pointed out, will have a high energy footprint because of the high computer usage.
I'm not really saying that though. The wrong architect or a bad architect on a particular project can be disastrous. I was mainly trying to say that it doesn't take a genius to come up with a square or a rectangle or a circle shaped structure.
It's harder than you think. Look at human buildings for the last 3 millennia ? how many are spheres, cubes, etc? Not many.
And let's just say for a moment that you're right that it doesn't take genius to come up with the idea. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because the process is way more involved. You have to remember that with any project involving a large organization, people at every level are going to want to add their own little touch or their personal idea or whatever. If there isn't someone with the vision and strength to see a project through to the end, then it's inevitably going to be mangled along the way.
Now that I think of it, it's funny that I make this point, because that's one of the main themes in The Fountainhead (which I referenced a few posts back).
Maybe it doesn't take a genius to come up with a square or a rectangle (or whatever), but maybe it takes a genius to actually get it built.
And finally, I think that it's ironic we're having this discussion, precisely because the genius of Apple is the seemingly effortless simplicity of their products that almost no one else has achieved (and certainly not to the magnitude that Apple has achieved).
Its kind of sad the level of discourse coming from Cupertino's elected officials. Obviously none of these people are particularly qualified to speak to the architecture or the urban planning surrounding this project.
The nearest any of them arrived at a meaningful inquiry was about the increase in traffic and they accepted Jobs's justification that 20% was a small increase to the existing site without recognizing how much an impact that will have. No one bothered to ask about transportation between Infinite Loop and the new Apple Spaceship. Instead they asked pedestrian questions like "can't we get free wi-fi?" Right. That's an important question.
The people of Cupertino should be ashamed of their elected officials.
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).
Well, actually, companies do bargain with governments all the time. They get special tax breaks, or are required to augment local facilities. Apple, here in NYC, has agreed to fix up local train stations, as has Citicorp, and others.
There's nothing illegal with this. If the city demands things that are beyond their scope, they won't get it.
These are "givebacks", and not only are they legal, they're common. Again, here in NYC, there are large buildings that wouldn't have been allowed to be built the way they are if they didn't build plaza's to allow sunlight to reach the streets, and give pedestrians more room to walk, and even sit.
Its kind of sad the level of discourse coming from Cupertino's elected officials. Obviously none of these people are particularly qualified to speak to the architecture or the urban planning surrounding this project.
The nearest any of them arrived at a meaningful inquiry was about the increase in traffic and they accepted Jobs's justification that 20% was a small increase to the existing site without recognizing how much an impact that will have. No one bothered to ask about transportation between Infinite Loop and the new Apple Spaceship. Instead they asked pedestrian questions like "can't we get free wi-fi?" Right. That's an important question.
The people of Cupertino should be ashamed of their elected officials.
Yes, the council's questions were quite pedantic... but as Steve implied, he's lived there all his life and he wouldn't do anything to harm the area; that he has the best people in the world working on the project; and that he will work closely with Cupertino to ensure that things are done properly.
Comments
... Don't get me wrong, I think that Apples stores look great, but I think that what makes them look special is more due to their choice of materials rather than their simple, geometric shapes. If Apple hadn't made many of their stores using primarily glass, then nobody would have cared about a cube made out of bricks.
That's their job. Their concern isn't for Apple, it's for the community. Will what Apple is doing hurt or benefit it? That what they have to be concerned about. Having done work for the community board here in my area, I see how opposed they can be to projects. This was one of the friendliest receptions I've ever seen. They asked for little other than what would be expected, and the question about WiFi was tongue in cheek, and who knows, he might have agreed.
Most satisfying.
Fella, I've PUT people in public office. You have no idea who you're talking to.
With that out of the way, I agree this was mild opposition at worst. The council was more or less cowed. But get some perspective: The global economy is sinking. The market's about to crash (yes, again). Anyplace else on Earth would PAY Apple to locate in their community, and pay them well.
Yet Jobs felt compelled to remind these CLOWNS that his company pays taxes, because he's had problems with them before. Apple keeps Cupertino afloat, let's face it. It's not 'tongue in cheek' to ask for free Wi-Fi. It's stupid, tacky, and tasteless.
But hey, tick Jobs off with a 'cute' remark. He has billions of company dollars in the bank and the world at his feet. Go ahead, say something self-serving and stupid. No way he follows through on the veiled threat he felt it was necessary to make about Apple picking up and leaving, right? No way he's thinking about the years-long nightmare he was put through re his personal residence, right? And there's just no way he hears the clock ticking because he does not know if he'll live long enough to see this thing built.... right?
Sure, go ahead. Indulge yourself. Make your cutesy remark. What could happen?
Jobs did mention conferences. He specifically did mention the WWDC, so with over one million square feet in the building, which is wider than you may think, it's likely that they will do their presentations there. Remember that at theWWDc, he apologized for the size of the conference, and states that it was the biggest space they could get. Possibly, they will have more room here. The cafeterior will seat 3,000, so a bigger conference area is certainly possible.
Moscone Center is 2M square feet. Moscone West is obviously a smaller segment of that total space
but covers nearly a block and is three stories above ground.
The issue is that Apple doesn't need Moscone West 365 days a year but wants something bigger than that for a week. Whatever the size, it's unlikely that Apple has structured the 1M sq ft of floor space to be a multi-use conference center.
Something the city might like to have for economic stimulus and would be willing to trade tax revenue to get.
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.
I think your concerns are overdone. There is no doubt that Apple make a number of concessions, because that's always the case.
It's also nice of you to say what Apple should give away. This isn't a state owned company. It shouldn't be required to supplement the state. It's already paying mucho taxes, and that the point of those taxes, to do what you want done.
Steve said that they will leave the other buildings around the city over a period of years. It's just not possible to do it all at once because of the logistics.
Stores have to stand on their own, but we don't know what Apple may do here. It's possible they may open a small one. As far as the WiFi goes, municipal WiFi has been fought all around the country, with the courts usually backing up the private companies. If Apple wanted to give free WiFi, it would likely be tied up in the courts for years, as the IPS's fought it.
The cube on fifth Avenue is not derided at all. Maybe one of two writers don't like it. Big deal. Recently, it's been pointed out that it's become the most photographed landmark in NYC. So much for derision. No doubt there will be a small few who don't like this either. There always are for forward looking ideas. Many of the most famous landmark buildings around the world have their detractors, but really, who cares?
Did people here notice that Apple bought that entire strip of property to the east of the campus? They filled in the indent in the east center, and then added the vertical area to that. I wonder how many more acres that includes?
In addition, talking about the apartment houses, or condo's, or co-ops, or whatever they are, they have just gone up in value by a good bit. While it's true that during construction, the noise will be higher, that will pass, and will be interesting to many, as it's Apple's Hq that's being built, and with such a unique building, and campus, that alone will have people wanting to live there.
Afterwards, those who are lucky enough to have higher apartments that face the campus will have a view that's spectacular, unique, and of a very famous landmark, for that's surely what it will become. As here in NYC, where Central Park apartments command top prices, so will these. And you can be sure that developers around the area will be trying to buy up land so that they can offer living space that oversees the campus, and especially the main building.
This will spark some interesting development in the area, as this becomes a magnet. I've seen it happen before on a smaller scale.
Not to mention that if those lucky enough to own or rent one of these condo's also work for Apple they'll be able to get out of bed 15 minutes before work.
I wonder what the Apple building would have looked like had Apple been able to buy that little residential area. Would the circle have been bigger, or just more centrally positioned?
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.
Thanks for the fine example of hyperbole!
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.
What he said was that Apple's employees are, for the most part, affluent. He also said that they wouldn't be adding many new employees, but he was talking about that as a percentage; 20%. that would actually be an addition of about 2,500 to 3,500, depending on whether the 12 thousand or the 13 thousand figure would be the final number.
So that's a fair number of new employees, earning good salaries, paying taxes, and buying from city businesses, adding to the payrolls of those businesses as well.
The city will benefit from this both short term, as the campus is being built, with local jobs as well as those coming in from the outside, availing themselves of local services while they work on the campus, and the additional permanent jobs that will be coming in over time after it is built. The number of jobs being added is a lot for a community the size of this one, and the council knows it.
And it was utterly brainless, as well.
Yep, it was.
No way he follows through on the veiled threat he felt it was necessary to make about Apple picking up and leaving, right?
It was hardly veiled. And you're right...there are plenty of places that would offer him enough to take the loss on the land (likely if Apple was leaving the land value of what they bought would crater) and come out way ahead.
Apple leaving is something the council needs to consider and try to figure out how to mitigate. Given that Apple isn't asking for tax breaks (at least not publicly at this time) I'd try to figure out how to use this to diversify the tax base and make it a win proposition for both the city and apple.
Asking to be allowed to chip in (via tax breaks) to plus up the new build for mix use seems like one of the few opportunities here.
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.
As I posted before, fitting panels to existing structure can make sense, but with best practice new build it may not. Watch the video on the link I posted a page or so back. You'll see that the final building they case study is out in the desert and while it has tons of solar panels in the campus there aren't any on the buildings themselves, because the buildings have had massive design work into allowing them to be passively cooled in the desert.
You're assuming that a good building will always be made better by slapping photo-voltaic panels onto it, but that's not true. Solar panels directly fixed to a building, will dramatically increase the cooling requirement due to their low albedo. They'll also potentially increase requirement for artificial lighting if they're replacing glass. It's a very complicated multivariate optimization.
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.
The Spanish plant that you're referring to isn't photo-voltaic though, it's a solar furnace as are most other large scale high efficiency plants. They make a lot of sense in an unpopulated desert location, but they're not really viable on the Apple campus
Solar has its place, but it isn't a panacea, it's become something of a Shibboleth for a lot of environmentalists though - which can stand in the way of good science and optimal building design.
I wish I could recount some of the stories I heard about the custom architecture of the NeXT campus back in the day, but I don't have time right now.
One aspect of all that glass that I'm not fond of is the heat load from the sun. If not done properly the south-facing rooms all have their blinds drawn most of the time, and the air-conditioning becomes a huge operating cost. I would hope and assume that the architects know all this and compensate accordingly, but I would rather see something in that climate with a lot more shade overhangs.
(I've spent summers in Silicon Valley, and it typically hovers around 80-90 degrees fahrenheit for five months out of the year. Corporate architects and clients often have more design ego than brains, and I don't think Jobs, for all his accomplishments, is above this.)
To get around this, companies (and homes) can plant deciduous plants in front of their sun-facing windows. That way, the leaves fall in the cold months (letting in sunlight) and block the sun in the warm months. But depending on your point of view the view of leaves on the ground is either pleasant or disgusting
But from the renderings, it looks like there's quite a setback between the building and the landscaping. They probably want to show off the architecture...
....Stores have to stand on their own, but we don't know what Apple may do here. It's possible they may open a small one. As far as the WiFi goes, municipal WiFi has been fought all around the country, with the courts usually backing up the private companies. If Apple wanted to give free WiFi, it would likely be tied up in the courts for years, as the IPS's fought it....
Its possible that Apple would get a ton of traffic to a campus store. Think of the tourist etc. I'd stop by.
Now whether Apple would want that... doubt it.
Plus, don't want those Google boys and girls snooping around.
I wonder what the Apple building would have looked like had Apple been able to buy that little residential area.
I wonder if there's a precedent for something like this where Apple offers to rent each unit as it turns over, waiting it out until they eventually occupy 100% of the building? (They could, in turn, offer the apartments to employees as a perk or offset by salary so that it isn't a complete waste of money.) The problem is the apartment building owner knows what they're sitting on and has the upper hand here.
http://postimage.org/image/1na3jcihw/
Norman and Steve couldn't help themselves.
Pentagon + Apple = Sign of the devil?
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.
Is the 5th Ave Cube derided? If it is and if this donutian mothership will be, I can't imagine SJ or anyone at Apple could give a flying frk. When the worlds most celebrated buildings were designed and built they weren't 'old', or retro, they were of the day. Many were ahead 'of their day'. Some people don't like modernity, and some people probably prefer the look of a Dell to a Mac. Whatcha gonna do
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.
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?
You're confusing major solar installations that cost hundreds of millions to the low billions, that charge customers, to Apple's campus. Don't! Google is trying to be green, but their efforts aren't going to do much either. I don't want to see Apple spend tens of millions on solar that will contribute little to their needs.
Over time, we'll see if an installation like solar will pay off for a company the size of Apple. Homeowners are getting some pretty big tax breaks for something that otherwise wouldn't break even for them for twenty years, which is over the lifetime for such installations. The best power source right now is gas. If Apple finds solar to be useful in the coming years, maybe they will try that too. But the inefficiency is so low right now, on the order of 10 to 13%, that it's no more useful than a minor supplement for high density energy users. And even then, the costs are too high. What I'm seeing around the world are demonstration projects on buildings that don't add much to their energy efficiency, and those are mostly office buildings. Apple, as Steve pointed out, will have a high energy footprint because of the high computer usage.
...and some people probably prefer the look of a Dell to a Mac.
No! Please say it isn't so! Take that back! My world is crumbling...
I'm not really saying that though. The wrong architect or a bad architect on a particular project can be disastrous. I was mainly trying to say that it doesn't take a genius to come up with a square or a rectangle or a circle shaped structure.
It's harder than you think. Look at human buildings for the last 3 millennia ? how many are spheres, cubes, etc? Not many.
And let's just say for a moment that you're right that it doesn't take genius to come up with the idea. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because the process is way more involved. You have to remember that with any project involving a large organization, people at every level are going to want to add their own little touch or their personal idea or whatever. If there isn't someone with the vision and strength to see a project through to the end, then it's inevitably going to be mangled along the way.
Now that I think of it, it's funny that I make this point, because that's one of the main themes in The Fountainhead (which I referenced a few posts back).
Maybe it doesn't take a genius to come up with a square or a rectangle (or whatever), but maybe it takes a genius to actually get it built.
And finally, I think that it's ironic we're having this discussion, precisely because the genius of Apple is the seemingly effortless simplicity of their products that almost no one else has achieved (and certainly not to the magnitude that Apple has achieved).
The nearest any of them arrived at a meaningful inquiry was about the increase in traffic and they accepted Jobs's justification that 20% was a small increase to the existing site without recognizing how much an impact that will have. No one bothered to ask about transportation between Infinite Loop and the new Apple Spaceship. Instead they asked pedestrian questions like "can't we get free wi-fi?" Right. That's an important question.
The people of Cupertino should be ashamed of their elected officials.
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).
Well, actually, companies do bargain with governments all the time. They get special tax breaks, or are required to augment local facilities. Apple, here in NYC, has agreed to fix up local train stations, as has Citicorp, and others.
There's nothing illegal with this. If the city demands things that are beyond their scope, they won't get it.
These are "givebacks", and not only are they legal, they're common. Again, here in NYC, there are large buildings that wouldn't have been allowed to be built the way they are if they didn't build plaza's to allow sunlight to reach the streets, and give pedestrians more room to walk, and even sit.
Its kind of sad the level of discourse coming from Cupertino's elected officials. Obviously none of these people are particularly qualified to speak to the architecture or the urban planning surrounding this project.
The nearest any of them arrived at a meaningful inquiry was about the increase in traffic and they accepted Jobs's justification that 20% was a small increase to the existing site without recognizing how much an impact that will have. No one bothered to ask about transportation between Infinite Loop and the new Apple Spaceship. Instead they asked pedestrian questions like "can't we get free wi-fi?" Right. That's an important question.
The people of Cupertino should be ashamed of their elected officials.
Yes, the council's questions were quite pedantic... but as Steve implied, he's lived there all his life and he wouldn't do anything to harm the area; that he has the best people in the world working on the project; and that he will work closely with Cupertino to ensure that things are done properly.