5 ms·
I think about offices a lot, but I don't really agree with this article all that much. Apple isn't the same company as the so called "hot, tech" companies locat
by stevesearer 13y ago
I think about offices a lot, but I don't really agree with this article all that much. Apple isn't the same company as the so called "hot, tech" companies located in San Francisco.
An office for a growing 20-150 employee company, or even 1000+ employee company is entirely different than an office that will hold 15,000 employees, r&d facilities, parking, etc. Apple would literally need to build a skyscraper to achieve that in San Francisco proper.
I also don't agree that Facebook moved from Palo Alto to Menlo Park to be closer to the city in order to attract talent. It was about gathering enough real estate to house their growing company (and probably about who offered higher tax breaks).
EDIT: I guess my comment doesn't really address the idea that they might lose tech talent, but rather more the idea that having an office in SF is actually feasible.
- melling 13y agoAccording to Google Maps, Menlo Park is about 3 miles from Palo Alto. For those of us not in SV, are we missing some reason why this really rates as closer?
- wl 13y agoNo. The author's assertion has no basis in fact.
- stevesearer 13y agoI thought about that as well, but just didn't add it in my comment. The office is probably actually further away for many employees that already located themselves in Palo Alto to be close to HQ.
- stephencanon 13y agoAlso much worse for those who located themselves close to 280 / Caltrain / Foothill Ave for the easy commute to the old office.
- mc32 13y agoNone, the Menlo Campus is further from Caltrain, fwiw. So, from that (transport) perspective, it's rather a worse proposition.
- capkutay 13y agoThis article is just full of it in every regard. Menlo park is one freeway exit and one train stop closer to SF than Palo Alto. It would probably save you about 5 minutes (at most) in a ~45 minute driving commute.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- BashiBazouk 13y agoI had the impression at the time that it was a purely timing issue rather than conscious intent to be closer to the city. Oracle was finishing up it's assimilation of Sun at the same time Facebook needed new digs with room to grow. Not that many properties available in the valley of that size even in a down turn...
- patmcc 13y ago>>Apple would literally need to build a skyscraper to achieve that in San Francisco proper. I'm not seriously suggesting it, but Apple could easily afford to do that. The Burj Khalifa skyscraper, tallest in the world, cost ~$1.5 billion, or about 1% of Apple's cash reserves.
- rlanday 13y agoIsn’t that less than the new campus is expected to cost?
- stevesearer 13y agoYeah, I think its estimated to be $4-5B. I was trying to find what skyscrapers in SF cost to build and apparently the new Transbay Transit Tower is estimated at $1B+. But it is supposed to have 1.3M Sqft, whereas Apple's new building will be around 3M sqft.
- BashiBazouk 13y agoThe cost of the One World Trade Center rebuild is at 3.8 billion last I read. Probably about the same to build in SF.
- logfromblammo 13y agoDubai also has access to near-slave labor from desperate foreign guest workers. You could not build anything near the scale of Burj Khalifa in SF for $1.5 billion. I'd estimate more like $10 billion, and it would take 3-4 times as long to build. Also, you have to take into account the cost of the brushed aluminum panels to seamlessly cover the entire building, the cost of rounding off every corner in the building, and the enormous Apple logos visible from any direction.
- bcbrown 13y ago> Apple would literally need to build a skyscraper to achieve that in San Francisco proper. That is exactly what Amazon is doing with their current expansion in Seattle.