141–150 of 221 posts
Apple style - one monolithic building designed down to the square foot. Google style - a motley assortment of buildings spread out over a large campus, some of which are better than others.
I have to ask - what is Microsoft style? Edit: Disclosure, I have been to Microsoft's campus, but I just couldn't help but ask this question. :)
This isn't impressive to me. What would be impressive would be building a skyscraper in downtown SF. Being environmentally friendly isn't building a massive campus on a plot of suburban grassland. Apple likes to say they think differently, but this isn't different. It's just slightly nicer than most other headquarters in a suburban wasteland.
I also think it's a bit unfair to judge the new Apple campus on a scale of "worldwide innovations in green facilities". Apple has done what seems to be a very good job of greening up their existing Cupertino presence, and they are probably going to end up spending a large amount of money on an effective model for how to deploy a modern green-er corporate campus. I don't think we need to ding them for not absolutely revolutionizing the integration of corporate office space with environments.
This is a Cupertino City Council meeting, not a presentation at the UN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's close, depending on what you mean by size. Looking at the Pentagon diagram on wikipedia and using the above estimates of 1100-1200 feet for the Mothership, it's about comparable in diameter. I'm fairly sure the Pentagon rings are thicker, though, so that probably contributes to it's ability to house 26k (employees + support personnel) instead of Apple's 12-3k.
The Pentagon also has more height, with 4 stories above ground and at least 2 below. Don't know if Apple plans on having stories below ground, there was no mention during the presentation, but not doing so would account for more of the difference.
I work in a small office park located quite similarly on a grassy field locked entirely by some freeways and other large roads, though the buildings here are cheap and ugly, but even if they weren't, it'd still totally suck. It's isolated, not a part of the city, essentially, it's just a large parking lot (most of which is below the ground, but that doesn't really change anything). It's quite disappointing. Maybe it'…
I worked at a place in Santa Monica called the Water Garden and it did seem isolated. And seeing cities like NYC and Taipei and even downtown Ann Arbor, I realize the benefits of new urbanism. However, I wonder if there is a new model emerging here in next generation corporate work centers. Buildings will get so large that they are act as their own cities, creating space that can be returned to ecological use. Such b…
I often wish someone had taken his real dream (a closely knit city of work, living, and play areas that always worked towards the future rather than a lame [by comparison to what it should have been] theme park) and run with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I grew up in Ontario, where McIntosh are king (and deliciously awesome!). I was surprised, when I moved, that a lot of people didn't know that the MacIntosh computer was actually named after this apple (trademark, or something, prevented them from using "McIntosh")
"Macintosh" was also chosen because it's acronym-proof
I'd have a back up plan for a second nearby city so that once the town councils bike-shedding begins, Steve can just shrug and say "Gee it would have been nice to build it here but..."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect the middle courtyard will have a lot of features not shown in the design, including meandering pathways, benches and lawns for laptop jockeys, full wifi coverage, and maybe even an outdoor cafe (or two, or three). It's the job of a landscape architect to create an environment that is both inviting for those walking outside, and serene for those looking out the window. Somehow I doubt they'll screw it up. (E…
It reminds me of the Pentagon, which has the same sort of stuff along with food vendors. It was pretty busy at lunch time and seemed to be a popular place to have a walk and talk meeting.
Apple style - one monolithic building designed down to the square foot. Google style - a motley assortment of buildings spread out over a large campus, some of which are better than others.
I find it extremely interesting that they'll be using natural gas as their primary energy source for the campus and using the electrical grid as their backup. Is this really cost effective? Are many businesses doing this?
I kind of assumed they would be using the cutting-edge Bloomenergy Boxes. Fuels: Natural Gas, Directed Biogas Input fuel pressure: 15 psig Electrical efficiency (LHV net AC): > 50% http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/data-sheet/ http://www.bloomenergy.com/