8 ms·

Rethinking office space

100 points by cleverjake 12y ago

hga 12y ago
I think I should point out that this is traditionally a sign of a peak of a company, sometimes called the Edifice Complex.
- kps 12y ago
  Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!¹          ¹not speaking for my king^H^H^H^Hemployer
- btian 12y ago
  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.
  - Fomite 12y ago
    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.
    - btian 12y ago
      > it's a well known phenomena Do you have any data to back it up or did you just made it up?
      - Fomite 12y ago
        http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-200... Or from a16z: "Pouring huge money into overly glorious new headquarters — “The Edifice Complex” — then repeating two years later. There’s also a danger in signaling to employees “we’ve made it, we’re amazing” (and while everyone hates the cramped but collaborative space when they’re in it, they miss it terribly after the move)."
        btian 12y ago
        That's anecdote, not data. Having 10 examples doesn't validate your point. And for the a16z stuff you quoted, the first paragraph says "10 ways to damage your fast-growing tech startup". Thanks for classifying Google as a fast-growing tech startup, but I think the startup phase was over a long time ago.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        Fomite 12y ago
        You had asked for data that it was a well-known phenomena. A major business publication and a well-known VC firm both referring to it by name is decent data for it being well-known, and the best you're going to get without paying me.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - benihana 12y ago
      >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.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - mattmanser 12y ago
        That says more about you than the term, it's not top in an incog search.
        nostrademons 12y ago
        (Not OP) I just tried - it's top in an incognito search as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it's geolocation-based.
    - alex_anglin 12y ago
      Data centers are buildings. They've built a bunch of those successfully.
      - protomyth 12y ago
        I think the original term comes from a headquarters where the company leaders want to express themselves. "Utility" buildings are pretty common and dictated by function for the most part. This happens to governments when they decide to build the "New City Hall". It generally goes really badly.
    - davidcgl 12y ago
      The BI article [1] you linked to only shows a correlation between a handful of companies' failure and their new buildings. They failed because of other factors; new buildings only accelerated their downfall. If this is the norm we wouldn't even have Google (and FB, Apple, Microsoft, Apple, etc) campuses today. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-200...
    - TaylorAlexander 12y ago
      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.
      - hga 12y ago
        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.
        Fomite 12y ago
        "Exactly. I at least view this phenomena as more likely signaling a peak than a downfall." - You do realize that a "peak" inherently implies a decline, yes?
        hga 12y ago
        Yes, but peak does not necessarily equal "downfall", it could be the start of a plateau, which can be very consequential, especially for a previously high growth tech company. I'm also using it loosely, it could also, after a while, be followed by another growth period. Or a decline could be slow, Google's business isn't necessarily of the sort where a fall would be quick.
  - Symbiote 12y ago
    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-base-will-have-room-for-4500-employees-8677716.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/googles-uk-b... ² http://www.techworld.com/news/startups/google-rent-offices-at-kings-cross-as-it-stalls-on-uk-hq-3593913/ http://www.techworld.com/news/startups/google-rent-offices-a...
- patmcguire 12y ago
  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.
- mbrzusto 12y ago
  it's almost like when SGI built that big hq in mountain view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googleplex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googleplex
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  It does seem not unusual that, at their peak, technology companies embark on a project that will eventually be their tomb. However, closer inspection reveals that this is really just survivor bias, as many companies continue on post tomb building. Apple built the Infinite Loop campus, Sun built its Menlo Park campus but really didn't "die" until after the Agnews complex was being built. Interestingly for me, they are getting bigger and bigger. The space ship complex for Apple (and this proposed Google setup) are both quite large. So harder to lease out as a unit to the next company that comes along. Still, if you have the extra cash laying about companies like IBM have proven that investing in real estate is a good hedge against the future. They have several really beautiful campuses.
  - bane 12y ago
    I think Atari had plans for such a building, they were scattered all over the valley and wanted to consolidate. But they got distracted by a couple buyouts and ended up dying before they could do it.
ilaksh 12y ago
Holy crap. Ok, sign me up for the new Google Domed City with integrated weather, parks, transportation (self-driving cars), housing, office space, entertainment, and local governance. Would like one here here in Ft. Worth, it is snowing a lot today. https://beta.googledomedcity.com https://beta.googledomedcity.com not resolving, darn. When is the Beta launching near me. Couple of feature requests: don't forget to include greywater recycling guys. And voting.
UhUhUhUh 12y ago
I'd work in a filthy basement in the middle of Kansas for a company/project that’s worth it.
- drewg123 12y ago
  I work for Google in Mountain View, and I'd prefer to work in a filthy basement in Kansas. The commute would be better, and the cost of living lower...
  - lfowles 12y ago
    Can confirm: It's certainly not a filthy basement, but it is in Kansas. Commute is great and CoL makes me wonder why anyone would want to live in SF/NYC :)
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    Move to Mountain View? For the 5 years I was at Google, I never lived more than 2 miles away, my commute was 15 minutes by bicycle, and for half that, rent was only about $1400/month (it started rising rapidly in the last few years). But wait, it's not SF? Well, neither is Kansas, and as far as urban life & young people go, Mountain View is a lot better than Kansas.
    - pearjuice 12y ago
      >only about $1400/month Interesting how you refer to that as "only". That's like 40% of the average American salary. But if you work at Google and you indicate $1400 with "only" I cannot help but assume Google employees are far above the average national income.
      - nostrademons 12y ago
        Rents for a 1BR in SF are now around $3000/month [1]. Mountain View has gone up significantly in the last few years, a sibling comment indicates it's around $2300/month, but comparatively speaking, it's still "only". Yes, this is insane. But people can pay them. Tech company employees are indeed far above the average national income. [1] http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/06/mapping_the_median_rent_of_a_onebedroom_in_san_francisco.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/06/mapping_the_median_...
beachstartup 12y ago
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?
- revelation 12y ago
  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.
  - ssharp 12y ago
    If people wanted to be in the same space, they would be.
  - kansface 12y ago
    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.
    - toast0 12y ago
      Honest question, how does prop 13 increase the cost of living?
      - msandford 12y ago
        I would guess that by reducing property tax you've made it possible for housing prices to go ever higher. This makes housing SEEM less affordable for sure (since the prices can continue to rise higher), and might also actually make it less affordable too as people are happy to build ever more expensive housing since the property tax rates are lower. A certain niceness of a house in a certain market will tend to sell/rent for $X per month, no matter how you arrive at $X. So if property taxes are high, it tends to reduce the actual price of the house since people don't just pay a mortgage, but rather have to pay everything associated with the house; mortgage, insurance, taxes, etc. This is a similar phenomena to the low interest rate, high property price that we've witnessed over the last decade or so in the US. At 4% a 200k house costs about $1k/mo once you roll in some kind of property tax and PMI. At 8% $1k/mo buys you less than 100k of house again assuming the same property tax and PMI.
andyl 12y ago
Looks like want to cover big parts of mountain view with a see-thru tent, and turn north-of-101 into a new downtown. Life under the dome. I absolutely hate it.
- RyJones 12y ago
  Castro is nice enough but there are enough people to support another urban center. I'm with you on being skeptical of dome life.
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    The area around San Antonio & El Camino looks like it may end up gentrifying into an urban center in the near future. There are mid-rise residential towers going up, and a number of shops in a walkable shopping center. North Bayshore would obviously be better for Googlers, but there seems to be a lot more resistance to building housing there, for whatever reason.
- glenra 12y ago
  I think they want it to look like the Bay Area is being eaten by a giant slime mold.
steven777400 12y ago
These really curved, artsy spaces remind me of Xanadu House and similar poorly received architectural experiments of the 70s. It often seems to me that designs of this type tip too far away from function and too much into form. (Plus what's the long-term maintenance requirements?) But if anyone could pull it off, it's probably Google!
jlebar 12y ago
For those without 10 minutes to spend watching the video, the architects are BIG and Thomas Heatherwick. <strike>I really wish they'd give them written credit -- they're the ones who did all the work!</strike> (It's actually there, I just missed it. :-/)
- karangoeluw 12y ago
  > 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.
  - jlebar 12y ago
    Such fail. Thanks.
atarian 12y ago
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.
- fiatpandas 12y ago
  Quite often I think buildings turn out to be what they look like in renderings if you look at form/layout/materials in isolation. The problem is the full vision: architects love tossing in an unrealistic amount of people having loads of fun that's almost impossible to have in such a spontaneous way. They stage social utopic scenarios in their renderings which almost never describe how the public ends up utilizing and interacting with the public spaces provided by the project.
dsl 12y ago
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.
- falsedan 12y ago
  The render on the blog post shows huge amounts of sunlight, curved geodesic, and the indoor path curving over the 'entrance', increasing the distance for someone on the inside to get out.
- bluthru 12y ago
  Do you have a link that talks about the Federal Building installing AC?
habosa 12y ago
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 at work. I currently commute to MTV from SF. I have a shitty apartment, i pay 2x as much as it's worth in any other city, and I commute 1.5hrs each way on a clogged highway. I hope it's doesn't get much worse.
- mankyd 12y ago
  Interestingly, a long commute is one of the most highly correlated factors with regards to people's happiness: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/06/perils-commuting http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/06/perils-commu... You may be happier living at work than you realize, (yes, I joke, but not as much as you'd think).
  - jarjoura 12y ago
    So you're saying if Google really wants happy employees they should open more offices in downtown SF? :)
    - dilap 12y ago
      yes, obviously, & i'm surprised they haven't
    - mmagin 12y ago
      Actually, they want to maximize their return on investment. A cost-effective happy employee.
    - bluthru 12y ago
      Yes. That would be the greenest thing possible. Unfortunately, the higher ups really like a short commute from their suburban homes. At least Amazon and Twitter are urban.
mortenjorck 12y ago
It's nothing if not bold. It seems to be drawing a fair amount of inspiration from the Metabolist movement of the 1960s, particularly in its emphasis on modularity and even mobility. I have to wonder how practical that's going to be – the only truly modular building to come out of Metabolism is Kisho Kurokawa's Nakagin Capsule Tower (http://www.voicesofeastanglia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Nakagin.jpg http://www.voicesofeastanglia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07...), but in four decades, none of the capsules have ever been moved or replaced.
cromwellian 12y ago
Google currently doesn't have space. MTV offices are packed, there's little space left to seat new employees, and no parking (pretty much have to rely on valet service) Google has only 3 options: 1. find existing buildings nearby, but this increases sprawl even more 2. move to another city or only open space in other cities 3. build new buildings on land holdings you already have #1 and #2 have the downsides of making it harder to collaborate. It's not "Edifice Complex" if you have no choice but to build more space. And so, if you're going to build new buildings, why not get what you want to satisfy your requirements rather than a cookie cutter design?
- crandles 12y ago
  Option 4. Remote work. That would solve for packed offices, packed parking lots, overpriced real estate, long commutes, and more.
  - ilaksh 12y ago
    Option 5. Screw it, we're The Google -- we are going to build our own mini-Domed Cities.
    - bhayden 12y ago
      Option 6. Create software that writes itself
mbrzusto 12y ago
wouldn't it be better to use existing structures, like all the abandoned malls in the usa? why not distribute the workforce so people can live in an affordable, commutable area? and it bugs me further they couldn't find a way to locate walking distance to bart or caltrain.
- toast0 12y ago
  There aren't any abandoned malls near the existing offices.
  - mbrzusto 12y ago
    but there are all over the country. why not give people to option to live somewhere else?
    - toast0 12y ago
      Google management must feel there is a benefit to having their employees clustered into a small number of campuses. Maybe mountain view isn't the optimal place for that, but uprooting the campus and distributing it among failed shopping malls throughout the world or building a giant googleplex in Montana is probably not a good strategy to keep the bulk of their employees.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  I used to work for a company that leased spaced out of an old mall. They also built their own huge new corporate office campus and moved everyone into it while I was there. I actually preferred the mall space. There was a movie theater and a drivers' license annex in it, and some lunch-friendly restaurants. The commute was faster. Parking was never a problem. City buses stopped there. The new corporate headquarters was in the middle of nowhere. You had to drive for 15 minutes to get anywhere else that you might want to be, including spiraling up all those ramps in the underground parking garage. It was well done architecturally, and very pretty, but I don't care about that while I'm working. And when I'm done working, I want to go somewhere else, and do something that is not work. The supposed benefit to collaboration was not realized by reducing the walking time between offices. The people that worked together most often were still seated the same distance from each other, and from their regular conference rooms. Anyone not physically present was still brought in via conference call. The increased distance to anything else made it more likely that you would miss someone who was out to lunch, at an appointment, or on a personal errand. The start and end of ordinary business hours created localized traffic congestion. So yes, it would be better to have a more distributed workforce.
RogerL 12y ago
I work near a wall of windows, which is quite nice. But every morning I'm pulling and adjusting the blinds to avoid being blinded by the morning sun. I also wonder about what it will sound like when it rains. I guess with that will the curved roof transmit sound very long distances, such that you can hear quiet conversations across the building. I'm don't mean this as negatively as this probably sounds. Google has done a lot of innovation in things like data centers, and I am hoping they have similar innovations for the problems I have raised.
jarjoura 12y ago
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 is occupied by Apple now :-|. Not saying any of it is bad, unless you consider a scenario with Apple needing to sell its "mothership" to any future potential corporation. Google's office plan does seem a bit overly optimistic but clearly pitched in a way to win support of Mountain View. Right now I don't see anything in the blog post that speaks to engineers and managers who actually WANT to work in the buildings, so I hold judgement until they share more about that part.
- kps 12y ago
  > Not saying any of it is bad, unless you consider a scenario with Apple > needing to sell its "mothership" to any future potential corporation. That would never happen ¹.  ¹http://www.metropolismag.com/Point-of-View/January-2014/In-Photos-Eero-Saarinens-Bell-Labs/ http://www.metropolismag.com/Point-of-View/January-2014/In-P...
- beamatronic 12y ago
  I imagine that the "mothership" building could probably be re-purposed into condos without too much hassle.
  - glenra 12y ago
    Sure, or office space for a bunch of different companies. Rent it out one wedge at a time.
- r00fus 12y ago
  > 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longaberger_Company
shrill-and-loud 12y ago
The language used right at the beginning is uncalled for and off-putting. Please consider your audience. There is no need to write "Not the sexiest title for a blog post, I know." when there are equally valid constructions that eschew the sexual.
- hugofirth 12y ago
  Anecdotally, referring to things that are not typically viewed in a sexual light, as "sexy" (or not), is fairly common parlance. Like so many things, the meaning of the word has evolved with its common usage to become more context dependent ; using it in this setting is perfectly normal. Also - I have to ask (genuinely intrigued) - who is this language supposed to be offending, and why?
falsedan 12y ago
Strongly reminded of How Buildings Learn's first episode[1], about buildings as statements which turn out to neglect the people who occupy them. [1] http://youtu.be/AvEqfg2sIH0 http://youtu.be/AvEqfg2sIH0
josephjrobison 12y ago
Not so sure doing yoga next to people eating lunch next to a bike path is ideal, but the concepts look awesome. Also who is going to clean all those windows? New automated self cleaning window robots?
tdicola 12y ago
Neat concept, but I can't help finding it ironic that this would make an actual reality of the stereotype that Googlers and tech companies in general are living in a bubble cut off from the rest of society. Also hopefully they won't throw stones after they move in to their glass house!
Animats 12y ago
Facebook's new building is a big open-plan office space, with some stuff to break up the visual sight lines. Since they're currently open-plan, that probably won't affect productivity much one way or the other. There's the anti-edifice complex company - Intel. Intel built their own office buildings to their own design, which was to have acre-sized floors with bullpens.[1] Grey bullpens. Grey walls. Grey carpet. It's depressing just to visit. I'd hate to work there. Apple's new mothership[2] definitely indicates an edifice complex. It could work out, though. Apple is currently spread over a large number of modest buildings separated by busy roads. The mothership is a big round building with a lot of underground parking. Just getting most of their people within walking distance will be a win. Of course, that assumes Apple allows them to talk to each other. The city of Mountain View insisted that Google put 5,000 housing units into their plan. That should help. The classic edifice in Silicon Valley is IBM Almaden Research, from the 1960s. You enter through a modest gate and drive through rolling hills for a mile, until you reach the big glass and steel complex atop the mountain. The cafeteria looks out on miles of unblemished parkland. A lot of good stuff came out of there, including three Nobel prizes. Today, it's a shadow of what it once was. Part of it is rented out. Overdoing this sort of thing is rare in the US today. Moscow, Dubai, and Beijing, though... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZmos0GSCWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZmos0GSCWE [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2784069 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2784069
- bluthru 12y ago
  Apple's profit last quarter was $18 billion. The new building will cost $5 billion. They'll be fine.
- chubot 12y ago
  The city of Mountain View insisted that Google put 5,000 housing units into their plan. That should help. Citation? I'm seeing conflicting reports. One article says Google wants to build them; One has a councilman suggesting it. I don't think it's required -- that would be weird. http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/27/google-hq/#Vd7nAQ:64H http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/27/google-hq/#Vd7nAQ:64H "“It needs to be a neighborhood in Mountain View,” the video above says. That’s a contentious point, as Google has long wanted to build north of 5,000 housing units in the area, which the city council has resisted. The inability to co-locate or build housing in line with the company’s growth has put pressure on cities to the north like San Francisco." http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/26/google-taps-heatherwick-ingels-avant-garde-european-architects-to-design-new-hq-in-mountain-view/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/26/google-taps-heat... Google’s plan to redesign the city’s North Bayshore area will bring even more workers to this suburban city. Mountain View city councilman Leonard Siegel said he wants to add 5,000 new housing units to the plan.
bluesnowmonkey 12y ago
Cubicles get marketed with the same modularity idea, but in practice hardly anyone actually moves them around after the initial installation. Do they really expect to move buildings?
lwhalen 12y ago
The concept looks super cool, but that Radcliffe guy needs to fix his bad habit of ending most every sentence with a question? It's very distracting to the overall flow and feel of the video? I wonder how long it'll take for the first buildings to come to fruition?
- andyl 12y ago
  He's an uptalker? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdhJxAmUu3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdhJxAmUu3Y
- bluthru 12y ago
  The indirectness in silicon valley speak is grating. Starting sentences with "So..." and ending with questions is annoying indeed.
kabouseng 12y ago
Reminds me of the following passages from Masters of Doom[1] "When the elevator doors finally opened into the penthouse, it felt as though Romero was standing on top of the moon. The two-story, 22,500-square-foot loft seemed to spill into the stars. The space was bare but surrounded by a wraparound window view of the city and a seemingly endless sixty-foot arched glass ceiling. But there were problems, the agent explained. The space was so big and windowed and close to the sun that it was extremely difficult to air-condition. Even the glass ceiling they toiled beneath became a problem, specifically, a nightmare of light. Next to vampires, no one hates the light as much as gamers; there’s nothing worse than a big, bad glare blinding down on a computer screen. Nobody could work. The architects were immediately called in to install stylish spoilers on top of the cubicles. But they proved hardly dark enough to suit the gamers’ finicky tastes. Instead, they caravanned to Home Depot and returned on a mission. They whipped out the staple guns and fastened thick sheets of black felt over every cube in the office. They didn’t just work in the shade, they worked in the black. To get into their cubes, they had to part their drapes of felt like photographers entering miniature darkrooms. It became an awesome and ironic sight; walk through the glass dome of gamers’ paradise and all one saw were rows of caves." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Doom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Doom
trhway 12y ago
i worked in offices, cubes, and now in the south facing open space with bad AC and lightning (result of a very expensive with all the latest fads remodel). I am at the state of office nirvana - i know it just can't get worse than that, so whatever "rethinking" is going to happen in the office space - let them, i don't care.
nikhizzle 12y ago
arcology
ChuckFrank 12y ago
Reminds me of the model city that's at the beginning of Logan's Run. (I looked for the footage, but couldn't find the clip.)
robotresearcher 12y ago
It's hot in Mountain View for several months a year. How are they going to cool these greenhouses?
slantedview 12y ago
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).
glenra 12y ago
The usual theory I've heard isn't so much that fancy starchitect headquarters cause the companies to fail. Rather, it's more of a signaling story. To wit: new headquarters say something about the kind of company you have, and what it says is usually a bad sign. When companies are doing really well the corporate offices are too busy doing stuff to hire a starchitect and the company is growing too fast for it to make sense to literally set in stone how it should henceforth be arranged. You tend to build a fancy new building when the company has stopped growing (so you know how big to make the building and how to lay out the various departments) and when the management staff is to some extent twiddling their thumbs looking for something useful to do rather than starting bold new projects. That sort of building signals the company is coasting rather than being dynamic. They are investing time and money and effort in a building because (unlike when they were growing) they currently can't think of anything better to invest that time and money in. However, both Apple and Google are arguably exceptions to this rule. In Apple's case, mitigating circumstances include that they've already survived building and moving into the "Infinite Loop" campus and a vast flood of architecturally-interesting Apple Stores. Their new campus - while impressive - is essentially iterative; it's doing something they've done before using skills they've successfully used before, merely on a larger scale. In Google's case, their (goofy) design explicitly seems to anticipate LOTS of change and potential further growth and reorganization. They are not "setting in stone" the shape of the company. And in both Google AND Apple's case, the companies have so much money and so many employees that it'd be stupid NOT to try to consolidate a bit at this point.
- johan_larson 12y ago
  One key sign: basically no one in those pictures is actually working. I see one guy with a laptop, and I suppose a few people could be trying to solve hard problems by walking around. But there is more yoga in those pictures than software development or customer service or anything that Google does for a living.

100 points by cleverjake 12y ago

hga 12y ago

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

kps 12y ago
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!¹          ¹not speaking for my king^H^H^H^Hemployer
btian 12y ago
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.
- Fomite 12y ago
  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.
  - btian 12y ago
    > it's a well known phenomena Do you have any data to back it up or did you just made it up?
    - Fomite 12y ago
      http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-200... Or from a16z: "Pouring huge money into overly glorious new headquarters — “The Edifice Complex” — then repeating two years later. There’s also a danger in signaling to employees “we’ve made it, we’re amazing” (and while everyone hates the cramped but collaborative space when they’re in it, they miss it terribly after the move)."
      - btian 12y ago
        That's anecdote, not data. Having 10 examples doesn't validate your point. And for the a16z stuff you quoted, the first paragraph says "10 ways to damage your fast-growing tech startup". Thanks for classifying Google as a fast-growing tech startup, but I think the startup phase was over a long time ago.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        Fomite 12y ago
        You had asked for data that it was a well-known phenomena. A major business publication and a well-known VC firm both referring to it by name is decent data for it being well-known, and the best you're going to get without paying me.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - benihana 12y ago
    >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.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - mattmanser 12y ago
      That says more about you than the term, it's not top in an incog search.
      - nostrademons 12y ago
        (Not OP) I just tried - it's top in an incognito search as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it's geolocation-based.
  - alex_anglin 12y ago
    Data centers are buildings. They've built a bunch of those successfully.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      I think the original term comes from a headquarters where the company leaders want to express themselves. "Utility" buildings are pretty common and dictated by function for the most part. This happens to governments when they decide to build the "New City Hall". It generally goes really badly.
  - davidcgl 12y ago
    The BI article [1] you linked to only shows a correlation between a handful of companies' failure and their new buildings. They failed because of other factors; new buildings only accelerated their downfall. If this is the norm we wouldn't even have Google (and FB, Apple, Microsoft, Apple, etc) campuses today. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-200...
  - TaylorAlexander 12y ago
    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.
    - hga 12y ago
      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.
      - Fomite 12y ago
        "Exactly. I at least view this phenomena as more likely signaling a peak than a downfall." - You do realize that a "peak" inherently implies a decline, yes?
        hga 12y ago
        Yes, but peak does not necessarily equal "downfall", it could be the start of a plateau, which can be very consequential, especially for a previously high growth tech company. I'm also using it loosely, it could also, after a while, be followed by another growth period. Or a decline could be slow, Google's business isn't necessarily of the sort where a fall would be quick.
- Symbiote 12y ago
  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-base-will-have-room-for-4500-employees-8677716.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/googles-uk-b... ² http://www.techworld.com/news/startups/google-rent-offices-at-kings-cross-as-it-stalls-on-uk-hq-3593913/ http://www.techworld.com/news/startups/google-rent-offices-a...
patmcguire 12y ago
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.
mbrzusto 12y ago
it's almost like when SGI built that big hq in mountain view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googleplex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googleplex
ChuckMcM 12y ago
It does seem not unusual that, at their peak, technology companies embark on a project that will eventually be their tomb. However, closer inspection reveals that this is really just survivor bias, as many companies continue on post tomb building. Apple built the Infinite Loop campus, Sun built its Menlo Park campus but really didn't "die" until after the Agnews complex was being built. Interestingly for me, they are getting bigger and bigger. The space ship complex for Apple (and this proposed Google setup) are both quite large. So harder to lease out as a unit to the next company that comes along. Still, if you have the extra cash laying about companies like IBM have proven that investing in real estate is a good hedge against the future. They have several really beautiful campuses.
- bane 12y ago
  I think Atari had plans for such a building, they were scattered all over the valley and wanted to consolidate. But they got distracted by a couple buyouts and ended up dying before they could do it.

ilaksh 12y ago

Holy crap. Ok, sign me up for the new Google Domed City with integrated weather, parks, transportation (self-driving cars), housing, office space, entertainment, and local governance. Would like one here here in Ft. Worth, it is snowing a lot today. https://beta.googledomedcity.com https://beta.googledomedcity.com not resolving, darn. When is the Beta launching near me. Couple of feature requests: don't forget to include greywater recycling guys. And voting.

UhUhUhUh 12y ago

I'd work in a filthy basement in the middle of Kansas for a company/project that’s worth it.

drewg123 12y ago
I work for Google in Mountain View, and I'd prefer to work in a filthy basement in Kansas. The commute would be better, and the cost of living lower...
- lfowles 12y ago
  Can confirm: It's certainly not a filthy basement, but it is in Kansas. Commute is great and CoL makes me wonder why anyone would want to live in SF/NYC :)
- nostrademons 12y ago
  Move to Mountain View? For the 5 years I was at Google, I never lived more than 2 miles away, my commute was 15 minutes by bicycle, and for half that, rent was only about $1400/month (it started rising rapidly in the last few years). But wait, it's not SF? Well, neither is Kansas, and as far as urban life & young people go, Mountain View is a lot better than Kansas.
  - pearjuice 12y ago
    >only about $1400/month Interesting how you refer to that as "only". That's like 40% of the average American salary. But if you work at Google and you indicate $1400 with "only" I cannot help but assume Google employees are far above the average national income.
    - nostrademons 12y ago
      Rents for a 1BR in SF are now around $3000/month [1]. Mountain View has gone up significantly in the last few years, a sibling comment indicates it's around $2300/month, but comparatively speaking, it's still "only". Yes, this is insane. But people can pay them. Tech company employees are indeed far above the average national income. [1] http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/06/mapping_the_median_rent_of_a_onebedroom_in_san_francisco.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/06/mapping_the_median_...

beachstartup 12y ago

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?

revelation 12y ago
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.
- ssharp 12y ago
  If people wanted to be in the same space, they would be.
- kansface 12y ago
  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.
  - toast0 12y ago
    Honest question, how does prop 13 increase the cost of living?
    - msandford 12y ago
      I would guess that by reducing property tax you've made it possible for housing prices to go ever higher. This makes housing SEEM less affordable for sure (since the prices can continue to rise higher), and might also actually make it less affordable too as people are happy to build ever more expensive housing since the property tax rates are lower. A certain niceness of a house in a certain market will tend to sell/rent for $X per month, no matter how you arrive at $X. So if property taxes are high, it tends to reduce the actual price of the house since people don't just pay a mortgage, but rather have to pay everything associated with the house; mortgage, insurance, taxes, etc. This is a similar phenomena to the low interest rate, high property price that we've witnessed over the last decade or so in the US. At 4% a 200k house costs about $1k/mo once you roll in some kind of property tax and PMI. At 8% $1k/mo buys you less than 100k of house again assuming the same property tax and PMI.

andyl 12y ago

Looks like want to cover big parts of mountain view with a see-thru tent, and turn north-of-101 into a new downtown. Life under the dome. I absolutely hate it.

RyJones 12y ago
Castro is nice enough but there are enough people to support another urban center. I'm with you on being skeptical of dome life.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  The area around San Antonio & El Camino looks like it may end up gentrifying into an urban center in the near future. There are mid-rise residential towers going up, and a number of shops in a walkable shopping center. North Bayshore would obviously be better for Googlers, but there seems to be a lot more resistance to building housing there, for whatever reason.
glenra 12y ago
I think they want it to look like the Bay Area is being eaten by a giant slime mold.

steven777400 12y ago

These really curved, artsy spaces remind me of Xanadu House and similar poorly received architectural experiments of the 70s. It often seems to me that designs of this type tip too far away from function and too much into form. (Plus what's the long-term maintenance requirements?) But if anyone could pull it off, it's probably Google!

jlebar 12y ago

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

karangoeluw 12y ago
> 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.
- jlebar 12y ago
  Such fail. Thanks.

atarian 12y ago

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.

fiatpandas 12y ago
Quite often I think buildings turn out to be what they look like in renderings if you look at form/layout/materials in isolation. The problem is the full vision: architects love tossing in an unrealistic amount of people having loads of fun that's almost impossible to have in such a spontaneous way. They stage social utopic scenarios in their renderings which almost never describe how the public ends up utilizing and interacting with the public spaces provided by the project.

dsl 12y ago

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.

falsedan 12y ago
The render on the blog post shows huge amounts of sunlight, curved geodesic, and the indoor path curving over the 'entrance', increasing the distance for someone on the inside to get out.
bluthru 12y ago
Do you have a link that talks about the Federal Building installing AC?

habosa 12y ago

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 at work. I currently commute to MTV from SF. I have a shitty apartment, i pay 2x as much as it's worth in any other city, and I commute 1.5hrs each way on a clogged highway. I hope it's doesn't get much worse.

mankyd 12y ago
Interestingly, a long commute is one of the most highly correlated factors with regards to people's happiness: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/06/perils-commuting http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/06/perils-commu... You may be happier living at work than you realize, (yes, I joke, but not as much as you'd think).
- jarjoura 12y ago
  So you're saying if Google really wants happy employees they should open more offices in downtown SF? :)
  - dilap 12y ago
    yes, obviously, & i'm surprised they haven't
  - mmagin 12y ago
    Actually, they want to maximize their return on investment. A cost-effective happy employee.
  - bluthru 12y ago
    Yes. That would be the greenest thing possible. Unfortunately, the higher ups really like a short commute from their suburban homes. At least Amazon and Twitter are urban.

mortenjorck 12y ago

It's nothing if not bold. It seems to be drawing a fair amount of inspiration from the Metabolist movement of the 1960s, particularly in its emphasis on modularity and even mobility. I have to wonder how practical that's going to be – the only truly modular building to come out of Metabolism is Kisho Kurokawa's Nakagin Capsule Tower (http://www.voicesofeastanglia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Nakagin.jpg http://www.voicesofeastanglia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07...), but in four decades, none of the capsules have ever been moved or replaced.

cromwellian 12y ago

Google currently doesn't have space. MTV offices are packed, there's little space left to seat new employees, and no parking (pretty much have to rely on valet service) Google has only 3 options: 1. find existing buildings nearby, but this increases sprawl even more 2. move to another city or only open space in other cities 3. build new buildings on land holdings you already have #1 and #2 have the downsides of making it harder to collaborate. It's not "Edifice Complex" if you have no choice but to build more space. And so, if you're going to build new buildings, why not get what you want to satisfy your requirements rather than a cookie cutter design?

crandles 12y ago
Option 4. Remote work. That would solve for packed offices, packed parking lots, overpriced real estate, long commutes, and more.
- ilaksh 12y ago
  Option 5. Screw it, we're The Google -- we are going to build our own mini-Domed Cities.
  - bhayden 12y ago
    Option 6. Create software that writes itself

mbrzusto 12y ago

wouldn't it be better to use existing structures, like all the abandoned malls in the usa? why not distribute the workforce so people can live in an affordable, commutable area? and it bugs me further they couldn't find a way to locate walking distance to bart or caltrain.

toast0 12y ago
There aren't any abandoned malls near the existing offices.
- mbrzusto 12y ago
  but there are all over the country. why not give people to option to live somewhere else?
  - toast0 12y ago
    Google management must feel there is a benefit to having their employees clustered into a small number of campuses. Maybe mountain view isn't the optimal place for that, but uprooting the campus and distributing it among failed shopping malls throughout the world or building a giant googleplex in Montana is probably not a good strategy to keep the bulk of their employees.
logfromblammo 12y ago
I used to work for a company that leased spaced out of an old mall. They also built their own huge new corporate office campus and moved everyone into it while I was there. I actually preferred the mall space. There was a movie theater and a drivers' license annex in it, and some lunch-friendly restaurants. The commute was faster. Parking was never a problem. City buses stopped there. The new corporate headquarters was in the middle of nowhere. You had to drive for 15 minutes to get anywhere else that you might want to be, including spiraling up all those ramps in the underground parking garage. It was well done architecturally, and very pretty, but I don't care about that while I'm working. And when I'm done working, I want to go somewhere else, and do something that is not work. The supposed benefit to collaboration was not realized by reducing the walking time between offices. The people that worked together most often were still seated the same distance from each other, and from their regular conference rooms. Anyone not physically present was still brought in via conference call. The increased distance to anything else made it more likely that you would miss someone who was out to lunch, at an appointment, or on a personal errand. The start and end of ordinary business hours created localized traffic congestion. So yes, it would be better to have a more distributed workforce.

RogerL 12y ago

I work near a wall of windows, which is quite nice. But every morning I'm pulling and adjusting the blinds to avoid being blinded by the morning sun. I also wonder about what it will sound like when it rains. I guess with that will the curved roof transmit sound very long distances, such that you can hear quiet conversations across the building. I'm don't mean this as negatively as this probably sounds. Google has done a lot of innovation in things like data centers, and I am hoping they have similar innovations for the problems I have raised.

jarjoura 12y ago

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 is occupied by Apple now :-|. Not saying any of it is bad, unless you consider a scenario with Apple needing to sell its "mothership" to any future potential corporation. Google's office plan does seem a bit overly optimistic but clearly pitched in a way to win support of Mountain View. Right now I don't see anything in the blog post that speaks to engineers and managers who actually WANT to work in the buildings, so I hold judgement until they share more about that part.

kps 12y ago
> Not saying any of it is bad, unless you consider a scenario with Apple > needing to sell its "mothership" to any future potential corporation. That would never happen ¹.  ¹http://www.metropolismag.com/Point-of-View/January-2014/In-Photos-Eero-Saarinens-Bell-Labs/ http://www.metropolismag.com/Point-of-View/January-2014/In-P...
beamatronic 12y ago
I imagine that the "mothership" building could probably be re-purposed into condos without too much hassle.
- glenra 12y ago
  Sure, or office space for a bunch of different companies. Rent it out one wedge at a time.
r00fus 12y ago
> 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longaberger_Company

shrill-and-loud 12y ago

The language used right at the beginning is uncalled for and off-putting. Please consider your audience. There is no need to write "Not the sexiest title for a blog post, I know." when there are equally valid constructions that eschew the sexual.

hugofirth 12y ago
Anecdotally, referring to things that are not typically viewed in a sexual light, as "sexy" (or not), is fairly common parlance. Like so many things, the meaning of the word has evolved with its common usage to become more context dependent ; using it in this setting is perfectly normal. Also - I have to ask (genuinely intrigued) - who is this language supposed to be offending, and why?

falsedan 12y ago

Strongly reminded of How Buildings Learn's first episode[1], about buildings as statements which turn out to neglect the people who occupy them. [1] http://youtu.be/AvEqfg2sIH0 http://youtu.be/AvEqfg2sIH0

josephjrobison 12y ago

Not so sure doing yoga next to people eating lunch next to a bike path is ideal, but the concepts look awesome. Also who is going to clean all those windows? New automated self cleaning window robots?

tdicola 12y ago

Neat concept, but I can't help finding it ironic that this would make an actual reality of the stereotype that Googlers and tech companies in general are living in a bubble cut off from the rest of society. Also hopefully they won't throw stones after they move in to their glass house!

Animats 12y ago

Facebook's new building is a big open-plan office space, with some stuff to break up the visual sight lines. Since they're currently open-plan, that probably won't affect productivity much one way or the other. There's the anti-edifice complex company - Intel. Intel built their own office buildings to their own design, which was to have acre-sized floors with bullpens.[1] Grey bullpens. Grey walls. Grey carpet. It's depressing just to visit. I'd hate to work there. Apple's new mothership[2] definitely indicates an edifice complex. It could work out, though. Apple is currently spread over a large number of modest buildings separated by busy roads. The mothership is a big round building with a lot of underground parking. Just getting most of their people within walking distance will be a win. Of course, that assumes Apple allows them to talk to each other. The city of Mountain View insisted that Google put 5,000 housing units into their plan. That should help. The classic edifice in Silicon Valley is IBM Almaden Research, from the 1960s. You enter through a modest gate and drive through rolling hills for a mile, until you reach the big glass and steel complex atop the mountain. The cafeteria looks out on miles of unblemished parkland. A lot of good stuff came out of there, including three Nobel prizes. Today, it's a shadow of what it once was. Part of it is rented out. Overdoing this sort of thing is rare in the US today. Moscow, Dubai, and Beijing, though... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZmos0GSCWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZmos0GSCWE [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2784069 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2784069

bluthru 12y ago
Apple's profit last quarter was $18 billion. The new building will cost $5 billion. They'll be fine.
chubot 12y ago
The city of Mountain View insisted that Google put 5,000 housing units into their plan. That should help. Citation? I'm seeing conflicting reports. One article says Google wants to build them; One has a councilman suggesting it. I don't think it's required -- that would be weird. http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/27/google-hq/#Vd7nAQ:64H http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/27/google-hq/#Vd7nAQ:64H "“It needs to be a neighborhood in Mountain View,” the video above says. That’s a contentious point, as Google has long wanted to build north of 5,000 housing units in the area, which the city council has resisted. The inability to co-locate or build housing in line with the company’s growth has put pressure on cities to the north like San Francisco." http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/26/google-taps-heatherwick-ingels-avant-garde-european-architects-to-design-new-hq-in-mountain-view/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/26/google-taps-heat... Google’s plan to redesign the city’s North Bayshore area will bring even more workers to this suburban city. Mountain View city councilman Leonard Siegel said he wants to add 5,000 new housing units to the plan.

bluesnowmonkey 12y ago

Cubicles get marketed with the same modularity idea, but in practice hardly anyone actually moves them around after the initial installation. Do they really expect to move buildings?

lwhalen 12y ago

The concept looks super cool, but that Radcliffe guy needs to fix his bad habit of ending most every sentence with a question? It's very distracting to the overall flow and feel of the video? I wonder how long it'll take for the first buildings to come to fruition?

andyl 12y ago
He's an uptalker? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdhJxAmUu3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdhJxAmUu3Y
bluthru 12y ago
The indirectness in silicon valley speak is grating. Starting sentences with "So..." and ending with questions is annoying indeed.

kabouseng 12y ago

Reminds me of the following passages from Masters of Doom[1] "When the elevator doors finally opened into the penthouse, it felt as though Romero was standing on top of the moon. The two-story, 22,500-square-foot loft seemed to spill into the stars. The space was bare but surrounded by a wraparound window view of the city and a seemingly endless sixty-foot arched glass ceiling. But there were problems, the agent explained. The space was so big and windowed and close to the sun that it was extremely difficult to air-condition. Even the glass ceiling they toiled beneath became a problem, specifically, a nightmare of light. Next to vampires, no one hates the light as much as gamers; there’s nothing worse than a big, bad glare blinding down on a computer screen. Nobody could work. The architects were immediately called in to install stylish spoilers on top of the cubicles. But they proved hardly dark enough to suit the gamers’ finicky tastes. Instead, they caravanned to Home Depot and returned on a mission. They whipped out the staple guns and fastened thick sheets of black felt over every cube in the office. They didn’t just work in the shade, they worked in the black. To get into their cubes, they had to part their drapes of felt like photographers entering miniature darkrooms. It became an awesome and ironic sight; walk through the glass dome of gamers’ paradise and all one saw were rows of caves." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Doom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Doom

trhway 12y ago

i worked in offices, cubes, and now in the south facing open space with bad AC and lightning (result of a very expensive with all the latest fads remodel). I am at the state of office nirvana - i know it just can't get worse than that, so whatever "rethinking" is going to happen in the office space - let them, i don't care.

nikhizzle 12y ago

arcology

ChuckFrank 12y ago

Reminds me of the model city that's at the beginning of Logan's Run. (I looked for the footage, but couldn't find the clip.)

robotresearcher 12y ago

It's hot in Mountain View for several months a year. How are they going to cool these greenhouses?

slantedview 12y ago

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).

glenra 12y ago

The usual theory I've heard isn't so much that fancy starchitect headquarters cause the companies to fail. Rather, it's more of a signaling story. To wit: new headquarters say something about the kind of company you have, and what it says is usually a bad sign. When companies are doing really well the corporate offices are too busy doing stuff to hire a starchitect and the company is growing too fast for it to make sense to literally set in stone how it should henceforth be arranged. You tend to build a fancy new building when the company has stopped growing (so you know how big to make the building and how to lay out the various departments) and when the management staff is to some extent twiddling their thumbs looking for something useful to do rather than starting bold new projects. That sort of building signals the company is coasting rather than being dynamic. They are investing time and money and effort in a building because (unlike when they were growing) they currently can't think of anything better to invest that time and money in. However, both Apple and Google are arguably exceptions to this rule. In Apple's case, mitigating circumstances include that they've already survived building and moving into the "Infinite Loop" campus and a vast flood of architecturally-interesting Apple Stores. Their new campus - while impressive - is essentially iterative; it's doing something they've done before using skills they've successfully used before, merely on a larger scale. In Google's case, their (goofy) design explicitly seems to anticipate LOTS of change and potential further growth and reorganization. They are not "setting in stone" the shape of the company. And in both Google AND Apple's case, the companies have so much money and so many employees that it'd be stupid NOT to try to consolidate a bit at this point.

johan_larson 12y ago
One key sign: basically no one in those pictures is actually working. I see one guy with a laptop, and I suppose a few people could be trying to solve hard problems by walking around. But there is more yoga in those pictures than software development or customer service or anything that Google does for a living.