Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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.



In any other city I think this would be a more valid point. But San Francisco is tiny. A lot of people really don't grok just how geographically small the place is. An Apple move to downtown SF would be incredibly disruptive, would generate epic amounts of traffic on already extremely congested roads, would doubtless increase pollution and energy expense, and price thousands of families out of SF neighborhoods as wealthy Apple employees relocated.

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.


I did hear the suggestion that what they should really do with their cashpile do is buy up the entire Tenderloin and knock it down for a new Apple HQ.


It sounds like you're treating an Apple building downtown differently than any other skyscraper. It's still just a big tower filled with people. Are you saying that SF is literally bursting at the seams and that it can't support another big office tower? What about the giant Transbay development plan? If you're going to stuff 12,000+ people anywhere, it's better to do it in an already dense area to take advantage of efficiencies.

Green Metropolis is an interesting read about big cities and sustainability: http://www.amazon.com/Green-Metropolis-Smaller-Driving-Susta...


Yes. That is what I am saying. That even if Apple could make the building itself as green as conceivably possible, simply moving 12,000 people's workplaces to the city of San Francisco would create additional problems and be a net negative.

If you want to call that "bursting at the seams" that's fine, but Apple isn't in a position to reengineer the whole dysfunctional city of San Francisco.


> Apple isn't in a position to reengineer the whole dysfunctional city of San Francisco.

I'm imagining what San Francisco reengineered by Apple would be like. Somewhere on the same continuum as Disneyworld and the Las Vegas strip, but with rounded edges, lots of greenery and a social order similar to Singapore.


I don't think it would make financial sense for Apple to move to SF.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: