Apple sends informational mailer to neighbors of forthcoming Campus 2

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 55
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,502member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The Jobs' garage was rectangular on day one. 


     


    I get what you and Soli are saying. I just don't like the design of the new campus. Making a statement with architecture, fashion, or other pretentious display is not something that I admire.



     


    I'll give you an example of how quality architecture helps: It improves the morale and presence of your entire company. Case in Point: Working at NeXT and Apple the collaborative designs [more at NeXT and soon at new Apple Campus] allowed a continuous flow of communication which created a very close knit ecosystem. Apple not as much, but then working on assignments at ATT Wireless reminded me how disjointed most of the industry is and continues to be.


     


    To be honest, working outside of SV in IT is a complete waste of time. Whether Seattle, Orlando or NY they are dumps compared to SV. Above it all Infinite Loop 1 is still a far more interesting campus than most of SV and now with their new campus it's no contest.


     


    You build higher retention levels, more productivity and an overall joy at work.


     


    Another example: PIXAR. Steve's entire company at PIXAR harkens much of their explosive productivity to that new campus and how actually being at work is nothing but a continuous collaborative environment.


     


    Most work is mundane, uninspiring and downright a waste of time when you have no passion in it. When your work environment is uninspiring the work tends to bare out.


     


    LucasFilms is another place where the environment is designed to enhance your output. It works.

  • Reply 42 of 55
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member


    large-lucas_arts


    Lucas

    image

    Pixar


     


     


    image


    NeXT


     


     


    I have nothing against quality architecture. I just don't like crazy over the top architecture like the proposed Campus 2.



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post




     


    I'll give you an example of how quality architecture helps: It improves the morale and presence of your entire company. 


     


  • Reply 43 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    Ihave nothing against quality architecture. I just don't like crazy over the top architecture like the proposed Campus 2.

    It's just a circle, imagine if it were a sphere. There's nothing over the top about that design¡


    1000
  • Reply 44 of 55
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    It's just a circle, imagine if it were a sphere.



     


    The reason that most buildings are straight and rectangular is because the building materials industry is designed to accommodate the widest range of needs therefore gaining the economy of scale. If you want to build your building using all curved components then your building materials will all be custom made.


     


    Simple formula really: If you truly need curved architecture for example your spherical spaceship then you pay accordingly for the added expense of materials and labor. If it is worth it to do that, perhaps for advertising purposes or just on a whim then by all means do it as long as you can afford it. That certainly doesn't mean that the end result is more elegant or more practical it just means it is more expensive. Surely one could build an equally ugly structure using straight components but there is a reason that many cities will not permit Apple to build crazy buildings in their jurisdiction. It is because it would look out of place and devalue the adjacent properties in the commercial center, at least in the minds of the local historical preservation society. 

  • Reply 45 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    The reason that most buildings are straight and rectangular is because the building materials industry is designed to accommodate the widest range of needs therefore gaining the economy of scale. If you want to build your building using all curved components then your building materials will all be custom made.

    Simple formula really: If you truly need curved architecture for example your spherical spaceship then you pay accordingly for the added expense of materials and labor. If it is worth it to do that, perhaps for advertising purposes or just on a whim then by all means do it as long as you can afford it. That certainly doesn't mean that the end result is more elegant or more practical it just means it is more expensive. Surely one could build an equally ugly structure using straight components but there is a reason that many cities will not permit Apple to build crazy buildings in their jurisdiction. It is because it would look out of place and devalue the adjacent properties in the commercial center, at least in the minds of the local historical preservation society. 

    If you're going argue against doing something that hasn't been done before you'll have argue against any structure that pioneered against the status quo. Apple's campus is 4(?) stories above the ground? Isn't that much more reasonable than making something hundred or more stories above the ground? The engineering to support the square footage would be much easier if they built out instead of up so you think that was a pointless endeavor and achievement, too?

    You mention economies of scale and custom manufacturing but why is that an issue here and not elsewhere in Apple's achievements. Should they have just gone with plastic covers for the iPhone or are we better off with Apple getting Corning to produce Gorilla Glass? What about Apple's A chips? Should they have just used off the shelf Cortex designs because it was easier than designing their own, more efficient chips? I certainly don't think so.

    Apple has a long history of taking something they mastered in one area and applying it to other areas. There is a synergy that most large companies simply don't have. They've learned a lot from their explorative glass ideas so why not push yet another boundary in human engineering? For all we know their longterm goals with glass is line with actual products the way the unibody, milled aluminium shell of the original MBA has tricked to down to nearly every product, including the Apple TV remote control. But even if there is no other goal it doesn't matter and doesn't diminish what can be achieved by pushing the envelope of human understanding. In no way do I think Apple shouldn't do it because it's less cost effective than putting up a bunch temporary trailers.
  • Reply 46 of 55
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Solipsisms View Post




    Quote:

    In no way do I think Apple shouldn't do it because it's less cost effective than putting up a bunch temporary trailers.




    Nor do I, but there is a middle ground. People still put on their pants one leg at a time, not necessarily because there isn't a more high tech way to dress oneself or else all men would be wearing skirts, just that people generally have two legs and the current design of pants is adequate.


     


    Edit: Sorry I won't be able to respond any time soon as we are leaving to an event 

  • Reply 47 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    Nor do I, but there is a middle ground. People still put on their pants one leg at a time, not necessarily because there isn't a more high tech way to dress oneself or else all men would be wearing skirts, just that people generally have two legs and the current design of pants is adequate.

    You're not making a good argument here. You're really saying you're against industry and innovation. Let's look at your pants example. Look at how textiles and clothing has changed since earliest recorded history to bring us to a point that we have pants/trousers.


    [VIDEO]


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 48 of 55


    re: the mstones of the world:


     


  • Reply 49 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    re: the mstones of the world:

    [image]

    Cool it. I completely disagree with mstone on this topic but he is by no means an idiot. On top of that, this conversation has been mature and civil so name calling isn't helpful.
  • Reply 50 of 55
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,878member
    mstone wrote: »
    The Jobs' garage was rectangular on day one. 

    I get what you and Soli are saying. I just don't like the design of the new campus. Making a statement with architecture, fashion, or other pretentious display is not something that I admire.

    Do you like boring rectangular buildings that blend in with other buildings? Do you just wear jeans and white tshirts to blend in with the crowd? Do you have any flowers outside your house or is it just grass from street to house. Are your walls painted white? Beige carpet too?
  • Reply 51 of 55


    Agree.


     


    If a physical work environment really can motivate or inspire or just make a person feel more special, then it's likely to be a success.  Truthfully, no one really knows how this will play out until a year or two after occupancy and the employees who work their provide their feedback.


     


    I am a bit curious about how people will move 'cross diameter' in this building (if at all).  I for one, think the American Airlines terminal in Dallas seems endless.  The arcs in the terminal buildings don't make me feel like I'm making progress when walking from one end to the other when connecting flights.  Will the loop geometry 'backfire' and people just give up, perferring to email vs. collaborrate?


     


    Time will tell...

  • Reply 52 of 55
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    We know Apple is an "experience" company so why should we expect anything less from a new HQ that is releasing one that is over 3 decades old and much too small.

    Actually their current HQ was build in 1993:
    In total, Apple has paid city business license fees or filed an application for a business license with the city of Cupertino on locations totaling more than 2 million square feet, city records show. That total includes its six-building world headquarters campus at 1 Infinite Loop, which represents about 850,000 square feet of the total. The campus, built for Apple by Cupertino's own Sobrato Development Cos. in 1993, is a regional landmark viewed daily by thousands who drive past it on Interstate 280.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/10/03/story4.html

    ...and I fully agree with the point in your post.
  • Reply 53 of 55
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Actually their current HQ was build in 1993:
    In total, Apple has paid city business license fees or filed an application for a business license with the city of Cupertino on locations totaling more than 2 million square feet, city records show. That total includes its six-building world headquarters campus at 1 Infinite Loop, which represents about 850,000 square feet of the total. The campus, built for Apple by Cupertino's own Sobrato Development Cos. in 1993, is a regional landmark viewed daily by thousands who drive past it on Interstate 280.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/10/03/story4.html

    ...and I fully agree with the point in your post.

    1) Thanks. I thought it was in the 80s they bought the property.

    2) 90s, 00s, and 10s does count as 3 decades, just not 30 years. :D
  • Reply 54 of 55
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,322member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The reason that most buildings are straight and rectangular is because the building materials industry is designed to accommodate the widest range of needs therefore gaining the economy of scale. If you want to build your building using all curved components then your building materials will all be custom made.


     


    Simple formula really: If you truly need curved architecture for example your spherical spaceship then you pay accordingly for the added expense of materials and labor. If it is worth it to do that, perhaps for advertising purposes or just on a whim then by all means do it as long as you can afford it. That certainly doesn't mean that the end result is more elegant or more practical it just means it is more expensive. Surely one could build an equally ugly structure using straight components but there is a reason that many cities will not permit Apple to build crazy buildings in their jurisdiction. It is because it would look out of place and devalue the adjacent properties in the commercial center, at least in the minds of the local historical preservation society. 



     


    Yeah, God forbid someone push the envelope, right? There's not many companies on the planet with the ambition, the resources, and the will to do what Apple plans to do with their new campus. So, why the hell not? Not like there's hundreds of companies who are pulling this kind of stuff off. Why not appreciate the extraordinary once in a blue moon? Apple is building one of these, not 50. Yes, it will be more expensive due to the design. Who gives a shit? Hasn't Apple earned the right to build  an incredible HQ the way it envisions it- or that Steve envisions it? How often are they going to build a new campus? They made 23 BILLION in PROFIT just in these last 2 quarters. They make in profit the entire cost of the new campus in roughly a month- an HQ they will be using for the next few decades.  And I think there's a shitload of considerations Apple made with the new campus, "expensive" is simply a byproduct of the design goals, not the goal itself. 

  • Reply 55 of 55
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    slurpy wrote: »
    Yeah, God forbid someone push the envelope, right? There's not many companies on the planet with the ambition, the resources, and the will to do what Apple plans to do with their new campus. So, why the hell not? Not like there's hundreds of companies who are pulling this kind of stuff off. Why not appreciate the extraordinary once in a blue moon? Apple is building one of these, not 50. Yes, it will be more expensive due to the design. Who gives a shit? Hasn't Apple earned the right to build  an incredible HQ the way it envisions it- or that Steve envisions it? How often are they going to build a new campus? They made 23 BILLION in PROFIT just in these last 2 quarters. They make in profit the entire cost of the new campus in roughly a month- an HQ they will be using for the next few decades.  And I think there's a shitload of considerations Apple made with the new campus, "expensive" is simply a byproduct of the design goals, not the goal itself. 

    Not to mention that when they're through with this, they will have advanced the art of using glass as an environmentally integrative building material. This building should also advance the sustainability concept in architecture into the 21st century quite clearly.

    As Solipsism X points out, Apple is an experience company. What's new here is that they're going all out to make the building and the grounds a peak experience for their employees.

    It's transcendental architecture. I don't expect some of the left-brain computer professionals like we have here will get it. They will, in fact, mock the idea, and miss the point totally.
Sign In or Register to comment.