Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking office space

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 129 posts

Re: Rethinking office space

#11

Post by Fomite »

btian wrote: post #9
hga wrote: post #2

I think I should point out that this is traditionally a sign of a peak of a company, sometimes called the Edifice Complex.

This is the first time Google is developing an office complex from scratch and it's somehow "Edifice Complex"? Mind you this is a $400 billion company.

You can object to it if you want, but it's a well known phenomena - starting to build buildings is often a bad sign for the company's long-term future prospects. And since we're talking about companies peaking, the size of the company isn't particularly relevant.

It is, of course, not a universal law, but lavish new office spaces are one of those things that don't seem to go well.

Re: Rethinking office space

#12

Post by jlebar »

For those without 10 minutes to spend watching the video, the architects are BIG and Thomas Heatherwick. I really wish they'd give them written credit -- they're the ones who did all the work! (It's actually there, I just missed it. :-/)

Re: Rethinking office space

#13

Post by karangoeluw »

jlebar wrote: post #12

For those without 10 minutes to spend watching the video, the architects are BIG and Thomas Heatherwick. I really wish they'd give them written credit -- they're the ones who did all the work! (It's actually there, I just missed it. :-/)

> It's the first time we'll design and build offices from scratch and we hope these plans by Bjarke Ingels at BIG and Thomas Heatherwick at Heatherwick Studio will lead to a better way of working.

They did.

Re: Rethinking office space

#14

Post by btian »

Fomite wrote: post #11
btian wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first time Google is developing an office complex from scratch and it's somehow "Edifice Complex"? Mind you this is a $400 billion company.

You can object to it if you want, but it's a well known phenomena - starting to build buildings is often a bad sign for the company's long-term future prospects. And since we're talking about companies peaking, the size of the company isn't particularly relevant. It is, of course, not a universal law, but lavish new office spaces are one of those things that don't seem to go well.

> it's a well known phenomena

Do you have any data to back it up or did you just made it up?

Re: Rethinking office space

#15

Post by ssharp »

revelation wrote: post #10
beachstartup wrote: post #6

well, that's certainly some tremendous architecture. however... conspicuously missing from the office space album is pictures of actual offices. maybe i just didn't see them. but as far as revolutionary concepts go, how about just giving your employees an office with a window and a door that shuts?

It's crazy, theres 10 minutes of inspiring (read: empty) talk and all of the renderings show completely empty buildings with just a bunch of floors that you can walk down one side and fall to your certain death. Also, America, no wonder your commute is long, theres a 10 lane highway surrounded by a bunch of single-family homes. If you want to put more people into the same space, what you usually do is go up in height…

If people wanted to be in the same space, they would be.

Re: Rethinking office space

#16

Post by atarian »

How often do buildings get to look like what the architects envision? I feel there is an often a disconnect similar to how many cars are initially designed to look futuristic and sleek, but later end up looking quite ordinary.

Re: Rethinking office space

#17

Post by benihana »

Fomite wrote: post #11
btian wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first time Google is developing an office complex from scratch and it's somehow "Edifice Complex"? Mind you this is a $400 billion company.

You can object to it if you want, but it's a well known phenomena - starting to build buildings is often a bad sign for the company's long-term future prospects. And since we're talking about companies peaking, the size of the company isn't particularly relevant. It is, of course, not a universal law, but lavish new office spaces are one of those things that don't seem to go well.

>but it's a well known phenomena

I'm a bit dubious when the top google link of this well known phenomenon is an urban dictionary definition.

Re: Rethinking office space

#18

Post by patmcguire »

hga wrote: post #2

I think I should point out that this is traditionally a sign of a peak of a company, sometimes called the Edifice Complex.

A lot of is to work around the limitations imposed - like not negatively impacting the habitat of burrowing owls. So it may just be a really weird solution for a series of really weird problems.

Re: Rethinking office space

#19

Post by dsl »

I'm reminded of the San Francisco Federal Building. It was designed with many of the same goals to "bridge the indoors and outdoors" and do away with traditional concepts in favor of being green and environmental.

It won many design awards, but later required massive retrofits to install traditional HVAC and ultimately was a complete failure.

Re: Rethinking office space

#20

Post by kansface »

revelation wrote: post #10
beachstartup wrote: post #6

well, that's certainly some tremendous architecture. however... conspicuously missing from the office space album is pictures of actual offices. maybe i just didn't see them. but as far as revolutionary concepts go, how about just giving your employees an office with a window and a door that shuts?

It's crazy, theres 10 minutes of inspiring (read: empty) talk and all of the renderings show completely empty buildings with just a bunch of floors that you can walk down one side and fall to your certain death. Also, America, no wonder your commute is long, theres a 10 lane highway surrounded by a bunch of single-family homes. If you want to put more people into the same space, what you usually do is go up in height…

Mountain View (all of Silicon Valley, really) has the bad habit of approving anything that brings in new jobs while simultaneously rejected housing commensurate to the number of jobs added. Many of the residents of the valley want their cities to remain de facto suburbs (designed for cars). Throw in prop 13, a substantial number of well paid transplants, and you have a recipe for the extreme cost of living in the Bay.
Post reply on HN