SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the should-really-be-in-space-or-undersea dept.
When Apple finishes its new $5 billion headquarters in Cupertino, California, the technorati will ooh and ahh over its otherworldly architecture, patting themselves on the back for yet another example of "innovation." Countless employees, tech bloggers, and design fanatics are already lauding the "futuristic" building and its many "groundbreaking" features. But few are aware that Apple's monumental project is already outdated, mimicking a half-century of stagnant suburban corporate campuses that isolated themselves—by design—from the communities their products were supposed to impact.
In the 1940s and '50s, when American corporations first flirted with a move to the 'burbs, CEOs realized that horizontal architecture immersed in a park-like buffer lent big business a sheen of wholesome goodness. The exodus was triggered, in part, by inroads the labor movement was making among blue-collar employees in cities. At the same time, the increasing diversity of urban populations meant it was getting harder and harder to maintain an all-white workforce. One by one, major companies headed out of town for greener pastures, luring desired employees into their gilded cages with the types of office perks familiar to any Googler.
Rockstar coders don't do suburbs?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by iamjacksusername on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:14PM
It is about externalizing infrastructure costs. Most of these bigger companies have towns competing to give them tax subsidies to stay. Marriot just extracted $62M in local tax incentives to move their headquarters to Bethesda. I have worked in the Princeton metro corridor for years and watched; hundreds of millions in federal money being spent to improve commuting roads to support all the corporate headquarters that have relocated out of NYC and North Jersey. That is money that these companies have taken from the public by using it to subsidize their corporate campus. It would be like if I purchased a house without any roads going to it 50 miles out of town and then the state paid to build a 50 mile road to my house just for me.
Workers should be upset about this. In order to get to a suburban campus, a family needs to pay for a car, insurance, maintenance and fuel. AAA puts that at $6,729 / year for a small sedan. That is a cost that you, as an employee, must bear and is a direct subsidy to your employer. Instead of locating their headquarters near their workforce where the tax structure may support commuting infrastructure such as rail, buses or even bicycles, companies are incentivized to move their campuses into office parks and then shift that commuting cost onto their employees and the public by requiring automobiles to reach the campus and public funds to build the road infrastructure to get there. For comparison, a city-wide subway pass in Philadelphia costs $1,012 for the entire year. If you live outside the city and need Regional Rail, the most expensive Rail Pass is $2,292 for the year. ( http://www.septa.org/fares/pass/trailpass.html [septa.org] ).
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:31PM
Also, it's hard to have a giant atrium and full CEO suite if you're building in a city.
What do you get for $5B these days in SF? One, maybe two city blocks? And lots of angry litigious neighbors...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:41PM
That is part of it.
There is another part. Zoning laws. I can stand up a office building on some old farm land for not too much money. However 'downtown' areas tend to be left over from heavy industrial uses. Meaning I have to come in and clean the building out from before the EPA was even a twinkle in Nixons eye (meaning lawyers and a hazmat cleaning crew). I have to get it rezoned (meaning lawyers). Where do most of my HIGHLY paid workers want to live? Here is a hint. It is not in a downtown apartment. They want to live in suburbia. Most of them came from there and like it. So the managers and people who make decisions like that want to be close to work too. He who has the gold makes the rules. Meaning I have to find parking for them. Oh and that bus that comes by once and awhile I now have to negotiate with the public bus company to change their routes. Meaning more bureaucracy and more lawyers involved. Oh I also have to negotiate with the local police now. They need to step up their jobs (meaning more lawyers).
Would it would be better if we had better public transportation. Absolutely. However, people are snobby. They get a bit of money they want to 'show it off'. I have lost track of the number of trophy wives I have heard this little gem out of 'do you know who my husband is'. People do not want to live frugal lives. They want to live like kings. They want a split level with 4 bedrooms, 2 bath and a nice driveway to park their shiny car in.
Not everyone is like that I know. But there are enough and I doubt they want to change no matter how much the other group wants them to change.
(Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:33PM
I agree that cities have not done their part to keep businesses from moving. But, as you said, however ahs the gold makes the rules. The long decline in civic infrastructure in cities was a deliberate policy of starvation as workers moved out and hollowed out the city cores in the 1960s. White flight took the capital and built enclaves outside the city where they could keep out people they did not like.
It is a complicated scenario with no one cause; that said, corporations have become adept at exploiting it by using public funds to subsidize their business. The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:26PM
Also many of those downtown areas were simply close to train tracks or good interstate access. Thats it. You even pointed it out. They purpose built the transportation to suit them. It is what they have always done.
A few cities these areas can be 'ok' to live in. For many, not by a long shot without tons of money. Most are just warehouses or former manufacturing buildings with poor access to where workers currently live. Take for example the city I live in. It used to be a huge in the cigarette manufacturing business. Well much of it is now empty due to changing fads of health. The buildings themselves have been shown to be little more than built by the lowest bidder junk from the mid 1930s. Much of it very poorly neglected and very little will bring it back. There is no 'gehto' there, no one lives there it is just empty warehouses a few miles in every direction. Its not even white flight. There just is no reason for people to be there. This buildings are not 'with a bit of TLC' they will be fine. They are just empty warehouses with no climate controls and many possible health hazards, and many times built just for whatever they were making and have odd shapes to them. When they do knock them down. They usually put in apartment complexes.
Also dont get too mad about my 'fad' comment. It is healthier to not smoke. But for many it is fashionable to 'be healthy' not be cause it is actually better for them.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:13PM
Your argument here exposes your own anti-car biases. Rail and subway are even more subsidized than roads are, so the real cost is higher than the monthly pass rates quoted. And most suburban people who takes trains into the city still have cars at home anyway. They're paying twice over.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]