
Rethinking office space - cleverjake
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/rethinking-office-space.html
======
kabouseng
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)

------
habosa
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.

~~~
jasonkester
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.

~~~
pc86
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.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
For what it's worth, I live in Sunnyvale just next to Mountain View and I have
never seen or heard this abbreviation used. I thought "I work at Google in
MTV" described some internal Google department, and it wasn't until I saw
"commute to MTV from SF" that it clicked.

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

~~~
btian
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
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
> it's a well known phenomena

Do you have any data to back it up or did you just made it up?

~~~
Fomite
[http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-
headquarters-200...](http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-
headquarters-2009-11)

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
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.

~~~
Fomite
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.

------
jarjoura
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.

~~~
beamatronic
I imagine that the "mothership" building could probably be re-purposed into
condos without too much hassle.

~~~
glenra
Sure, or office space for a bunch of different companies. Rent it out one
wedge at a time.

------
dsl
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
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.

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

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

~~~
bhayden
Option 6. Create software that writes itself

------
beachstartup
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
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.

~~~
kansface
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
Honest question, how does prop 13 increase the cost of living?

~~~
smokinn
Prop 13 limits property tax to the value of the house when you bought it
unlike most places where you pay property tax on the current value.

So what happens in other locations is that demand for locations starts going
up, housing prices go up, taxes go up and people who can't pay those taxes get
displaced. Developers buy those houses, raze them in favor of apartment
complexes and eventually you get density.

If people can stay in their single family 1.5 or 2 million dollar homes and
pay property taxes on the 30k they bought it for 30 years ago density won't
happen because those are the people that vote and they'll keep voting for
municipality limits on building to "keep the character of the neighborhood".

~~~
vonmoltke
dragonwriter covered most of the details, but they key one he missed in Prop
13 is that every other homestead law I am aware of has an owner occupancy
requirement that Prop 13 lacks. In Florida, which has a very generous
homestead law, the ad valorem tax limits apply to the owner-occupied primary
residence. You move and rent the place, your valuation spikes up to market
rate. Own two houses? Pick one, because the other is getting taxed at market
rate. It also does not apply to commercial property whatsoever.

Because of California's lenient qualifications, someone who bought that $30k
house can move to North Carolina and collect massive rent checks without
seeing their property taxes jump to reflect reality. The owners of apartment
complexes have a vested interest in keeping their properties as they are,
since a major renovation or addition would trigger a revaluation. Same for
owners of office and retail space who aren't big enough to cut tax deals with
the various levels of municipal government.

~~~
kansface
Those older than 55 can also apply their previous tax to any home they buy of
equal or lesser value when they move.

------
Animats
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)

~~~
chubot
_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-
heat...](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/26/google-taps-heatherwick-
ingels-avant-garde-european-architects-to-design-new-hq-in-mountain-view/)

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.

------
tdicola
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!

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

~~~
drewg123
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...

~~~
nostrademons
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
>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
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_...](http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/06/mapping_the_median_rent_of_a_onebedroom_in_san_francisco.php)

------
glenra
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
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.

------
steven777400
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!

------
falsedan
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)

------
mortenjorck
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...](http://www.voicesofeastanglia.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/Nakagin.jpg)), but in four decades, none of the
capsules have ever been moved or replaced.

------
bluesnowmonkey
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?

------
josephjrobison
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?

------
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).

------
lwhalen
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?

~~~
bluthru
The indirectness in silicon valley speak is grating.

Starting sentences with "So..." and ending with questions is annoying indeed.

------
RogerL
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.

------
jlebar
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
> 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
Such fail. Thanks.

------
atarian
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
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.

------
trhway
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.

------
ChuckFrank
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.)

------
ilaksh
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.

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

------
shrill-and-loud
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
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?

------
mbrzusto
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
There aren't any abandoned malls near the existing offices.

~~~
mbrzusto
but there are all over the country. why not give people to option to live
somewhere else?

~~~
toast0
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.

------
nikhizzle
arcology

------
andyl
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
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
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.

