If you look at the PDF that is on the City site, it shows the very open floor plans for the workers. One interesting thing I just thought about. Since there is less space on the inner wall than the outer, how are they going to stuff it full of cubicles? In most office spaces, the walls create a rectangle and you set up tour work areas with the partitions parallel to the walls. Can't do that here! Perhaps you "rotate" the plan so that the partition walls are at a 45 deg angle to the tangent of the outer wall - a diamond pattern from the view of someone looking in the window. This would allow for long rows of the same amount of cubicles with gaps in the corners for common areas. Just a thought. Other ideas?
The distance across the floorplan from the inner wall to the outer wall is 180 feet. That's an 18 story building laying on its side.
There's plenty of room for a variety of different layouts.
I agree with ameldrum1. Look at the parking decks. Each one of those little rectangles is 8'x16'
They could put cubicles following the circumference like the parking spaces... or put cubicles in rows like the spokes of a wheel.
Either way... it's a huge amount of space to work with.
No, it's evidence that Cupertino has to show Apple some love or lose an enormous source of tax revenues. The loss of those revenues would impact Cupertino far more than a new office building, and not for the better.
If you had actually watched the planning meeting you would remember the part where they ask Steve if he's bothered about the air pollution from the nearby cement plant. Apple is a high value, low polluting employer - any municipality would bend over backwards to win it.
No, it's evidence that corporations have way too much influence in these matters. They can play cities off against each other to get special breaks that you and I cannot get, often to the detriment of the larger community. A project of this size requires consideration of a whole host of issues. If a City Council says that an applicant, any applicant, should automatically get whatever they want (and I'm not sure they said quite so much), then they are abrogating their responsibilities to the community as a whole.
I have actually watched the video of the meeting, which I believe was actually the City Council. Decisions of this kind cannot not be made responsibly on the basis of some offhand general statements from a company's CEO. Fortunately the law in this state at least requires that they do something more than write blank checks to favored corporations.
No, it's evidence that corporations have way too much influence in these matters. They can play cities off against each other to get special breaks that you and I cannot get, often to the detriment of the larger community. A project of this size requires consideration of a whole host of issues. If a City Council says that an applicant, any applicant, should automatically get whatever they want (and I'm not sure they said quite so much), then they are abrogating their responsibilities to the community as a whole..
So let me understand this, you think that Cupertino's council would be doing better if they gave Apple a hard time and drove them to move to one of the thousands of other places that they could do business? Or do you think the law should force Apple to remain in the same place so that the council can squeeze them, because that's the only way that they could.
Apple isn't even asking for tax breaks, they're not asking for an increase in density on the site, they're not asking for rights to build on a green-field, they're really not asking for anything - but you still think that the council needs to make more demands on them?
I was poking around at their offices yesterday as it happens. Got my picture next to the infinite loop sign (yeah I know im sad) and ate at JB's, they make a mean pulled pork BBQ burger at that joint.
If only the city of Cupertino could be convinced that this attractive new building housing a company that's occasionally more valuable than Exxon could attract visitors who then put money into local businesses...oh wait. Never mind
So let me understand this, you think that Cupertino's council would be doing better if they gave Apple a hard time and drove them to move to one of the thousands of other places that they could do business? Or do you think the law should force Apple to remain in the same place so that the council can squeeze them, because that's the only way that they could.
Apple isn't even asking for tax breaks, they're not asking for an increase in density on the site, they're not asking for rights to build on a green-field, they're really not asking for anything - but you still think that the council needs to make more demands on them?
I have a couple of pieces of advice for you. First, try sticking to subjects you know. I'm not sure what subject you do know, since you seem to have a need to respond to everything anyone posts here. Second, if you do feel a need to respond to a post of mine, at least try reading what I wrote and responding to that, not some fantasy version of your own invention.
I have a couple of pieces of advice for you. First, try sticking to subjects you know. I'm not sure what subject you do know, since you seem to have a need to respond to everything anyone posts here. Second, if you do feel a need to respond to a post of mine, at least try reading what I wrote and responding to that, not some fantasy version of your own invention.
You might not understand the use of the symbol '?'. It's commonly referred to as a 'question mark' and its use indicates that I am asking a question. I'm not responding to a fantasy version of what you said, I'm asking if my reading of your bizarre comments was correct.
Either you are saying that the Cupertino planning folks should be giving Apple a harder time than they did in the meeting or you're just saying that they shouldn't have said something that they may or may not have said.
Quote:
If a City Council says that an applicant, any applicant, should automatically get whatever they want (and I'm not sure they said quite so much), then they are abrogating their responsibilities to the community as a whole.
If you're just arguing against them saying something that you couldn't even bother to check that they said how is it unreasonable that I'm asking you if you're saying something or not? Shouldn't you be responding to what they ACTUALLY said rather than just some fantasy version of your own invention?
Sigh. I watched the video posted several weeks ago where I recall one member of the City Council saying that there was no chance the city would not approve Apple's plans, and nobody else on the Council remarked to the contrary. It seems my memory of this is more complete than yours.
Putting a question mark after a sarcastic comment does not make it a serious question.
It's difficult to know what you mean by the city giving Apple a "harder time" since you don't seem to know what you yourself mean by this. More likely, you are once again talking through your hat.
To keep this as simple as possible, a project of this magnitude raises a whole host of land use, infrastructure and environmental issues, which the city can, or not, require Apple to address fully. It is just possible that Apple will cooperate to the satisfaction of everyone involved and affected. But having much first-hand experience with the development process I can report that it's far more likely that Apple will try to walk away from something, leaving someone else holding the bag. If the City Council has made a predetermination to give Apple whatever it wants before they've looked at the project in any detail, this increases the likelihood that Apple will be given license to skate on some impact-related cost or requirement.
The rubber will really hit the road when the Environmental Impact Report for this project is published. Under state law, the city has the obligation to reduce or avoid all project impacts where feasible, but the law has an escape clause. The Council can also adopt what is called a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which in essence is an admission that they are allowing the applicant to get away with something. I'll be watching to see if they go this route. It is also possible that Apple will attempt to shortcut the entire environmental review process by pressing the city to process it under a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Either route virtually assures a lawsuit.
Wow am I the only one who sees this design for what it is?
Clearly the underground torus is a linear accelerator, being disguised as a subterranean "parking lot".
The clear purpose of the linear accelerator is to generate anti-matter, need one delineate what that is used for!!!
With the anti-matter the propulsion and "self contained energy" generation is explained. As is the need to get the power usage off the grid...
Further the anti-matter is known to be used for generation of anti-gravity, and clearly a second generation RDF is being worked on in the extensive R&D facility.
To avoid nonsense like the ridiculous apartments that went up in my residential neighborhood - immediately dumping thousands of cars onto streets which aren't able to handle the extra traffic. :roll eyes:
It is almost always necessary to get zoning approval for major construction projects to ensure that the streets, power lines, water supply, etc are able to handle it.
Maybe there are height restrictions. Maybe the city would only approve x number of offices due to traffic concerns. Maybe the substructure isn't sufficient for a taller structure. Maybe earthquake rules won't allow it due to the glass construction. I don't know the reason, but I suspect that the expensive architects that Apple hired considered expansion options.
It always amazes me how anonymous teenagers on sites like this know more than multimillion dollar architect firms.
Jeesh, I was just asking a question. Snark-o-rama, thanks a lot.
Assuming anyone is interested in a serious answer to this question: The land is zoned by the city as Planned Development, which requires discretionary permitting. A portion of the property is zoned residential, which obviously would need to be changed. The discretionary permit by definition requires the preparation of an environmental impact report, by state law. Not that the city is going to much use their discretionary review powers, the City Council having apparently said in advance that what Apple wants, Apple gets. If I lived in Cupertino, I'd be troubled by that attitude.
Anyway, the expectation that someone could build 2.8 million square feet of office building anywhere in the country on a simple building permit is kind of an odd one. I don't where in the world such a thing would be possible, or desirable.
Thanks for the serious answer about the Planned Development zoning. Everyone on this site seems to think that just because a company wants to build a large facility, that means they have to get special government approval. That may or may not be desirable (I would say it might be), but the reality, this being America, is that many places allow you to build "as of right" - i.e., if you build within the zoning limits, the only thing required is that you build to code. "Planned development" zoning is a way for local government to require their approval for whatever gets built. That way, if this land parcel were being developed by 300 different developers on 300 different 1/2-acre sites, providing, say, 25 jobs per site, or 7500 jobs, the city council would need to approve 300 different projects, keeping them nice & busy.
Sigh. I watched the video posted several weeks ago where I recall one member of the City Council saying that there was no chance the city would not approve Apple's plans, and nobody else on the Council remarked to the contrary. It seems my memory of this is more complete than yours.
Oh so now you're sure that they said this eh? That's interesting because I just watched it again and in fact they said absolutely no such thing - the most that they said was that they 'looked forward to working with apple on the project', which is standard boiler plate. Nobody ever said that there was no chance of refusal, nobody ever said that Apple could have whatever it wanted, no blank cheques of any kind were issued.
So all that you have done has been (by your own argument) arguing against a fantasy invention of what the Cupertino city councillors said.
This building has the potential to be one of the most significant builds of its century, but there is still work to be done to make that happen. The big question is, will the city planners and the political correctness of Californians get in the way? For example, the idea that a parking garage of that size could be safely utilized with only a single point of entrance and egress is simply absurd planning. Yes, I'm sure the neighborhood thinks it will be able to control the traffic by channelling it all into one pipe, because that's how Northern California liberals think, but it will only create a routine massive traffic jam every day at the start and end of the day. Further, in the event of an emergency, or even a simply flat tire, the entire system could be brought to a grinding halt. There appears to be no backup. That is just nuts.
As for the giant loop... one has to wonder, will there be an internal system horizontal escalators (people movers)? The building is massive. Trying to get around in within it in an expeditious fashion will be a great challenge. This offers a unique opportunity to create a system of internal traffic planning that really hasn't been tried before.
Finally, Apple is only some 35-years old. Where will it be in another 30 years; even in another 10? Are they planning for expansion or will they eventually be forced to move from Cupertino? If they do not get the longterm planning done for doubling the size of this campus done now, it is only going to get more difficult as time goes by. It would be nice to see Apple use this building as an opportunity to break the Silicon Valley sprawl mentality by laying the groundwork for creating a denser multi-use neighborhood over time, so that people are walking to work rather than driving. Yes, all the parkland is nice, but the fact is, the Bay Area is chock full of parkland and has a serve shortage of housing that is within walking distance of people's workplaces.
For example, the idea that a parking garage of that size could be safely utilized with only a single point of entrance and egress is simply absurd planning. Yes, I'm sure the neighborhood thinks it will be able to control the traffic by channelling it all into one pipe, because that's how Northern California liberals think, but it will only create a routine massive traffic jam every day at the start and end of the day.
It's not like the location is currently farm land. How many employees were going to HP 5 days per week? How many spaces contained their parking across their campuses?
This building has the potential to be one of the most significant builds of its century, but there is still work to be done to make that happen. The big question is, will the city planners and the political correctness of Californians get in the way? For example, the idea that a parking garage of that size could be safely utilized with only a single point of entrance and egress is simply absurd planning. Yes, I'm sure the neighborhood thinks it will be able to control the traffic by channelling it all into one pipe, because that's how Northern California liberals think, but it will only create a routine massive traffic jam every day at the start and end of the day. Further, in the event of an emergency, or even a simply flat tire, the entire system could be brought to a grinding halt. There appears to be no backup. That is just nuts.
You raise some good points.
There are 4,600 parking spaces under the spaceship. How does that compare to underground parking garages in other major cities?
Also... is Apple a strict 9-to-5 operation? Well everyone attempt to exit at once?
Comments
If you look at the PDF that is on the City site, it shows the very open floor plans for the workers. One interesting thing I just thought about. Since there is less space on the inner wall than the outer, how are they going to stuff it full of cubicles? In most office spaces, the walls create a rectangle and you set up tour work areas with the partitions parallel to the walls. Can't do that here! Perhaps you "rotate" the plan so that the partition walls are at a 45 deg angle to the tangent of the outer wall - a diamond pattern from the view of someone looking in the window. This would allow for long rows of the same amount of cubicles with gaps in the corners for common areas. Just a thought. Other ideas?
The distance across the floorplan from the inner wall to the outer wall is 180 feet. That's an 18 story building laying on its side.
There's plenty of room for a variety of different layouts.
I agree with ameldrum1. Look at the parking decks. Each one of those little rectangles is 8'x16'
They could put cubicles following the circumference like the parking spaces... or put cubicles in rows like the spokes of a wheel.
Either way... it's a huge amount of space to work with.
No, it's evidence that Cupertino has to show Apple some love or lose an enormous source of tax revenues. The loss of those revenues would impact Cupertino far more than a new office building, and not for the better.
If you had actually watched the planning meeting you would remember the part where they ask Steve if he's bothered about the air pollution from the nearby cement plant. Apple is a high value, low polluting employer - any municipality would bend over backwards to win it.
No, it's evidence that corporations have way too much influence in these matters. They can play cities off against each other to get special breaks that you and I cannot get, often to the detriment of the larger community. A project of this size requires consideration of a whole host of issues. If a City Council says that an applicant, any applicant, should automatically get whatever they want (and I'm not sure they said quite so much), then they are abrogating their responsibilities to the community as a whole.
I have actually watched the video of the meeting, which I believe was actually the City Council. Decisions of this kind cannot not be made responsibly on the basis of some offhand general statements from a company's CEO. Fortunately the law in this state at least requires that they do something more than write blank checks to favored corporations.
This would be the perfect song and band for the first WWDC bash at the mothership campus!
Mothership Connection (Star Child)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR-m-QDDKPI
This was back when songs used to be longer than 6 minutes!
No, it's evidence that corporations have way too much influence in these matters. They can play cities off against each other to get special breaks that you and I cannot get, often to the detriment of the larger community. A project of this size requires consideration of a whole host of issues. If a City Council says that an applicant, any applicant, should automatically get whatever they want (and I'm not sure they said quite so much), then they are abrogating their responsibilities to the community as a whole..
So let me understand this, you think that Cupertino's council would be doing better if they gave Apple a hard time and drove them to move to one of the thousands of other places that they could do business? Or do you think the law should force Apple to remain in the same place so that the council can squeeze them, because that's the only way that they could.
Apple isn't even asking for tax breaks, they're not asking for an increase in density on the site, they're not asking for rights to build on a green-field, they're really not asking for anything - but you still think that the council needs to make more demands on them?
I'm afraid it won't be big enough. Apple is expanding, they should consider supporting at least 26,000 employees.
What is it with these loud-mouthed teenagers who think they know Apple's needs better than Apple does?
I was poking around at their offices yesterday as it happens. Got my picture next to the infinite loop sign (yeah I know im sad) and ate at JB's, they make a mean pulled pork BBQ burger at that joint.
If only the city of Cupertino could be convinced that this attractive new building housing a company that's occasionally more valuable than Exxon could attract visitors who then put money into local businesses...oh wait. Never mind
So let me understand this, you think that Cupertino's council would be doing better if they gave Apple a hard time and drove them to move to one of the thousands of other places that they could do business? Or do you think the law should force Apple to remain in the same place so that the council can squeeze them, because that's the only way that they could.
Apple isn't even asking for tax breaks, they're not asking for an increase in density on the site, they're not asking for rights to build on a green-field, they're really not asking for anything - but you still think that the council needs to make more demands on them?
I have a couple of pieces of advice for you. First, try sticking to subjects you know. I'm not sure what subject you do know, since you seem to have a need to respond to everything anyone posts here. Second, if you do feel a need to respond to a post of mine, at least try reading what I wrote and responding to that, not some fantasy version of your own invention.
I have a couple of pieces of advice for you. First, try sticking to subjects you know. I'm not sure what subject you do know, since you seem to have a need to respond to everything anyone posts here. Second, if you do feel a need to respond to a post of mine, at least try reading what I wrote and responding to that, not some fantasy version of your own invention.
You might not understand the use of the symbol '?'. It's commonly referred to as a 'question mark' and its use indicates that I am asking a question. I'm not responding to a fantasy version of what you said, I'm asking if my reading of your bizarre comments was correct.
Either you are saying that the Cupertino planning folks should be giving Apple a harder time than they did in the meeting or you're just saying that they shouldn't have said something that they may or may not have said.
If a City Council says that an applicant, any applicant, should automatically get whatever they want (and I'm not sure they said quite so much), then they are abrogating their responsibilities to the community as a whole.
If you're just arguing against them saying something that you couldn't even bother to check that they said how is it unreasonable that I'm asking you if you're saying something or not? Shouldn't you be responding to what they ACTUALLY said rather than just some fantasy version of your own invention?
Putting a question mark after a sarcastic comment does not make it a serious question.
It's difficult to know what you mean by the city giving Apple a "harder time" since you don't seem to know what you yourself mean by this. More likely, you are once again talking through your hat.
To keep this as simple as possible, a project of this magnitude raises a whole host of land use, infrastructure and environmental issues, which the city can, or not, require Apple to address fully. It is just possible that Apple will cooperate to the satisfaction of everyone involved and affected. But having much first-hand experience with the development process I can report that it's far more likely that Apple will try to walk away from something, leaving someone else holding the bag. If the City Council has made a predetermination to give Apple whatever it wants before they've looked at the project in any detail, this increases the likelihood that Apple will be given license to skate on some impact-related cost or requirement.
The rubber will really hit the road when the Environmental Impact Report for this project is published. Under state law, the city has the obligation to reduce or avoid all project impacts where feasible, but the law has an escape clause. The Council can also adopt what is called a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which in essence is an admission that they are allowing the applicant to get away with something. I'll be watching to see if they go this route. It is also possible that Apple will attempt to shortcut the entire environmental review process by pressing the city to process it under a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Either route virtually assures a lawsuit.
Clearly the underground torus is a linear accelerator, being disguised as a subterranean "parking lot".
The clear purpose of the linear accelerator is to generate anti-matter, need one delineate what that is used for!!!
With the anti-matter the propulsion and "self contained energy" generation is explained. As is the need to get the power usage off the grid...
Further the anti-matter is known to be used for generation of anti-gravity, and clearly a second generation RDF is being worked on in the extensive R&D facility.
Either that or Steve is pimping his ride home.
To avoid nonsense like the ridiculous apartments that went up in my residential neighborhood - immediately dumping thousands of cars onto streets which aren't able to handle the extra traffic. :roll eyes:
It is almost always necessary to get zoning approval for major construction projects to ensure that the streets, power lines, water supply, etc are able to handle it.
Maybe there are height restrictions. Maybe the city would only approve x number of offices due to traffic concerns. Maybe the substructure isn't sufficient for a taller structure. Maybe earthquake rules won't allow it due to the glass construction. I don't know the reason, but I suspect that the expensive architects that Apple hired considered expansion options.
It always amazes me how anonymous teenagers on sites like this know more than multimillion dollar architect firms.
Jeesh, I was just asking a question. Snark-o-rama, thanks a lot.
What is it with these loud-mouthed teenagers who think they know Apple's needs better than Apple does?
Um, who here is loud-mouthed? Oh, right, it's you. Probably you're the teenager, too.
Assuming anyone is interested in a serious answer to this question: The land is zoned by the city as Planned Development, which requires discretionary permitting. A portion of the property is zoned residential, which obviously would need to be changed. The discretionary permit by definition requires the preparation of an environmental impact report, by state law. Not that the city is going to much use their discretionary review powers, the City Council having apparently said in advance that what Apple wants, Apple gets. If I lived in Cupertino, I'd be troubled by that attitude.
Anyway, the expectation that someone could build 2.8 million square feet of office building anywhere in the country on a simple building permit is kind of an odd one. I don't where in the world such a thing would be possible, or desirable.
Thanks for the serious answer about the Planned Development zoning. Everyone on this site seems to think that just because a company wants to build a large facility, that means they have to get special government approval. That may or may not be desirable (I would say it might be), but the reality, this being America, is that many places allow you to build "as of right" - i.e., if you build within the zoning limits, the only thing required is that you build to code. "Planned development" zoning is a way for local government to require their approval for whatever gets built. That way, if this land parcel were being developed by 300 different developers on 300 different 1/2-acre sites, providing, say, 25 jobs per site, or 7500 jobs, the city council would need to approve 300 different projects, keeping them nice & busy.
Sigh. I watched the video posted several weeks ago where I recall one member of the City Council saying that there was no chance the city would not approve Apple's plans, and nobody else on the Council remarked to the contrary. It seems my memory of this is more complete than yours.
Oh so now you're sure that they said this eh? That's interesting because I just watched it again and in fact they said absolutely no such thing - the most that they said was that they 'looked forward to working with apple on the project', which is standard boiler plate. Nobody ever said that there was no chance of refusal, nobody ever said that Apple could have whatever it wanted, no blank cheques of any kind were issued.
So all that you have done has been (by your own argument) arguing against a fantasy invention of what the Cupertino city councillors said.
Do you want to restate your case?
As for the giant loop... one has to wonder, will there be an internal system horizontal escalators (people movers)? The building is massive. Trying to get around in within it in an expeditious fashion will be a great challenge. This offers a unique opportunity to create a system of internal traffic planning that really hasn't been tried before.
Finally, Apple is only some 35-years old. Where will it be in another 30 years; even in another 10? Are they planning for expansion or will they eventually be forced to move from Cupertino? If they do not get the longterm planning done for doubling the size of this campus done now, it is only going to get more difficult as time goes by. It would be nice to see Apple use this building as an opportunity to break the Silicon Valley sprawl mentality by laying the groundwork for creating a denser multi-use neighborhood over time, so that people are walking to work rather than driving. Yes, all the parkland is nice, but the fact is, the Bay Area is chock full of parkland and has a serve shortage of housing that is within walking distance of people's workplaces.
For example, the idea that a parking garage of that size could be safely utilized with only a single point of entrance and egress is simply absurd planning. Yes, I'm sure the neighborhood thinks it will be able to control the traffic by channelling it all into one pipe, because that's how Northern California liberals think, but it will only create a routine massive traffic jam every day at the start and end of the day.
It's not like the location is currently farm land. How many employees were going to HP 5 days per week? How many spaces contained their parking across their campuses?
This building has the potential to be one of the most significant builds of its century, but there is still work to be done to make that happen. The big question is, will the city planners and the political correctness of Californians get in the way? For example, the idea that a parking garage of that size could be safely utilized with only a single point of entrance and egress is simply absurd planning. Yes, I'm sure the neighborhood thinks it will be able to control the traffic by channelling it all into one pipe, because that's how Northern California liberals think, but it will only create a routine massive traffic jam every day at the start and end of the day. Further, in the event of an emergency, or even a simply flat tire, the entire system could be brought to a grinding halt. There appears to be no backup. That is just nuts.
You raise some good points.
There are 4,600 parking spaces under the spaceship. How does that compare to underground parking garages in other major cities?
Also... is Apple a strict 9-to-5 operation? Well everyone attempt to exit at once?