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

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: Rethinking office space

#91

Post by fraserharris »

jasonkester wrote: post #35
habosa wrote: post #23

I work at Google in MTV and this is very exciting to me. I think the higher-ups at this company have the vision to pull this off, I hope I stay engaged here long enough to see it. The real concern (which Google can't fully solve) is housing. If you add 10k or 20k more employees in these beautiful new offices, where do they all live? I guess Google could build apartments too but that's not ideal, I don't want to live…

For what it's worth, MTV doesn't mean Mountain View to anybody who doesn't live or work in Mountain View. To everybody else it means MTV, making the things you say very confusing.

Some common abbreviations (i've seen) used for Silicon Valley / Bay Area cities:

MP - Menlo Park (Facebook) PA - Palo Alto MTV - Mountain View (Google) SJ - San Jose SF - San Francisco

Re: Rethinking office space

#93

Post by hga »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #85
Fomite wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think perhaps starting to build buildings is a sign of a company's maturity, and that separately many companies that achieve this maturity end up struggling to maintain the focus they enjoyed during their growth. So maybe it is that big successful companies tend to build buildings, and that success sometimes is the downfall of an innovative company.

Exactly. I at least view this phenomena as more likely signaling a peak than a downfall.

It's often a sign that some of the people at the top believe they have nothing better to do than immerse themselves in creating a special building. They are by definition not as focused on the company's business. If this is happening with Google, it doesn't signal doom, but, as you say, a degree of maturity.

Re: Rethinking office space

#94

Post by r00fus »

jarjoura wrote: post #36

It's interesting that Google's office plan is garnering a lot of negative feedback. When Apple announced a plan to make one giant office building to house its entire corporate workforce, the general consensus was positive. Even Cupertino's politicians praised its ambition and assumed wealth it will bring to the city. Has anyone been in Cupertino recently? It feels like almost every single office building in that city…

> Not saying any of it is bad, unless you consider a scenario with Apple needing to sell its "mothership" to any future potential corporation.

Seriously, that's exactly what an iconic headquarters [1] is supposed to speak to - a defiance of ever being acquired, and if acquired, then to never be assimilated. In the case of both Apple and Google, I don't think it's hubris to think they'll be around in 50 years.

I applaud both campuses. The downstream implications of congestion, shopping needs and residential impact are not to be downplayed, however - and its not clear how those are being addressed in either proposal/project.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longaberger_Company

Re: Rethinking office space

#95

Post by bhayden »

ilaksh wrote: post #74
crandles wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Option 4. Remote work. That would solve for packed offices, packed parking lots, overpriced real estate, long commutes, and more.

Option 5. Screw it, we're The Google -- we are going to build our own mini-Domed Cities.

Option 6. Create software that writes itself

Re: Rethinking office space

#96

Post by kqr2 »

scholia wrote: post #90
habosa wrote: post #23

I work at Google in MTV and this is very exciting to me. I think the higher-ups at this company have the vision to pull this off, I hope I stay engaged here long enough to see it. The real concern (which Google can't fully solve) is housing. If you add 10k or 20k more employees in these beautiful new offices, where do they all live? I guess Google could build apartments too but that's not ideal, I don't want to live…

> I guess Google could build apartments too but that's not ideal, I don't want to live at work. In the industrial revolution, it wasn't uncommon for major industrialists to build "model villages" [1] to house workers. The best examples include Bournville (Cadbury's chocolate), Saltaire (wool) and Port Sunlight (Lever Bros soap etc). They were attractive places to live, compared with Victorian slums. You got a healthi…

Google has tried to build housing in Mountain View multiple times but their plans have been rejected:

http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housin...

In general, it's much easier to build office space than housing. Cities like it because it generates revenue but they don't have to provide additional support services such as schools, police officers, etc.

Re: Rethinking office space

#97

Post by Symbiote »

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.

It's at least the second time they've announced something, since they announced a £650M / $1G building in London in 2013¹.

But it seems that's stalled.²

¹ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/googles-uk-b...

² http://www.techworld.com/news/startups/google-rent-offices-a...

Re: Rethinking office space

#98

Post by somerandomness »

jasonkester wrote: post #35
habosa wrote: post #23

I work at Google in MTV and this is very exciting to me. I think the higher-ups at this company have the vision to pull this off, I hope I stay engaged here long enough to see it. The real concern (which Google can't fully solve) is housing. If you add 10k or 20k more employees in these beautiful new offices, where do they all live? I guess Google could build apartments too but that's not ideal, I don't want to live…

For what it's worth, MTV doesn't mean Mountain View to anybody who doesn't live or work in Mountain View. To everybody else it means MTV, making the things you say very confusing.

Agreed, MV makes more sense than MTV

Re: Rethinking office space

#99

Post by atarian »

pc86 wrote: post #70
jasonkester wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, MTV doesn't mean Mountain View to anybody who doesn't live or work in Mountain View. To everybody else it means MTV, making the things you say very confusing.

For what it’s worth, I live on the east coast, am not particularly keyed in to the Silicon Valley world like most HN readers, and knew (assumed) immediately that MTV = Mountain View based on the context of the article and the comment. I think it’s pretty obvious given the overall context here.

I've lived in Santa Clara for 3 years and I've never seen Mountain View referred to as MTV.

Re: Rethinking office space

#100

Post by slantedview »

The pictures are so ridiculous - awesome, but ridiculous. Two thoughts: few people are working, and everyone is young (presumably because older people who don't want to live the dorm life can't afford single family homes in the area).
Post reply on HN