Evidence is mounting that Apple has picked a location for its new campus

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Research Triangle Park located in what you call a "faux-liberal red state hotspot" was created by the state, local governments and with Duke and N.C. State in the 1950s.

Some facts and figures:
*Today it has developed 22.5 million square feet on 7,000 acres
*Home to 250 companies that employ over 50,000 FT people and 10,000 contractors
*over 3,500 patents awarded
*Many of the prescribed and OTC drugs you take were researched and developed at RTP
*50% of the regional population holds college degrees
*8,500 students that graduate each year from local Tier 1 Research Universities like Duke, UNC, and N.C State. [42,000 graduates/year in the colleges in the area combined]
*Cisco employs 5,000
*IBM employs 14,000

That's just in the park, the numbers grow outside the park boundaries.

That would be impressive if all that was on 10% of the land.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

And what is up with all those little neighborhood names? I guess those are really the names of all the different tract housing developments and apartments?

Take a looksy:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ca....7811169?hl=en

It gets weirder: years ago I had a girlfriend from suburban Richmond and she called those places "neighborhoods". Growing up in Chicago, proper, I was aghast that a random collection of cul-de-sacs with no businesses or often schools whatsoever, could be called a neighborhood.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by lio45

And I agree with mhays, I've always thought it was a no brainer that whenever a San Francisco firm wants an HQ2, they shouldn't put it in a place like Boston or Seattle, but rather a city that complements the one that has HQ1 by having the opposite advantages: cheap real estate, tons of suburbia, tons of room, easy access to SFHs with backyards, short commutes, warm weather.

I didn't say all that...just that I think "opposite" might be what Amazon is looking for.

Seattle isn't an easy candidate for an HQ2, but we're going nuts with expansions on the next level down. For example, Google and Facebook each have several buildings in Seattle and the metro for engineering type uses. Basically every major tech seems to be expanding here. Based on growth in this decade from San Francisco area firms alone, the trajectory is kind of like SF's collective "second center" came here. Not the support centers or manufacturing, but the high-wage stuff.

Why are they coming? Because while we're not an opposite, we're different enough to draw a lot of people who won't go to SF. A young engineer can do well on $100,000 here, without roommates, because our rents are (guessing) 60% of SF's. The climate is also pretty different. Offices are also significantly less expensive. Yet we have a down-scaled version of many of the same urban attributes. In some ways it's really helpful that we're the same time zone.

Our urbanity falls off outside of core areas, but those core areas are densifying at a furious pace. A big part of that is greater Downtown. As of a certain groundbreaking about 10 days ago, the greater-Downtown housing boom just hit 30,000 new units broken ground on since mid-2010. It's possible to live an urban life here. Amazon says 20% of their HQ1 staff walk or bike to work, and other reports suggest that only a quarter drive alone.

[skyscraperpage17]

IMO, if Raleigh lands Apple, I do think that reduces their chances of landing Amazon HQ2.

I say that mainly because I don't think Amazon will want to have to compete with Apple for a talent pool that's already at a premium.

[jd3189]

I would like Apple to come to Raleigh. The city and Triangle Park in general may not be urban but it's close to a lot of up and coming cities like Atlanta and Charlotte and smaller centers like Asheville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Charleston, and Wilmington. And it's not far from the NE megalopolis and Midwest. The upper South is a pretty interesting and beautiful place. I hope it continues to grow.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by mhays

That would be impressive if all that was on 10% of the land.

What an absurd statement. Why would it be any better if it were on 10% of the land? The US isn't Hong Kong, we're not exactly pressed for space. Building up is way more expensive than building out so it would just have been a waste of money to build a bunch of skyscrapers somewhere where there is absolutely no need for them.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

It gets weirder: years ago I had a girlfriend from suburban Richmond and she called those places "neighborhoods". Growing up in Chicago, proper, I was aghast that a random collection of cul-de-sacs with no businesses or often schools whatsoever, could be called a neighborhood.

I think that’s a common surbuban phenomenon. Growing up in the Chicago suburbs, I also thought of my subdivision as my neighborhood. So my friends in my subdivision were my “neighborhood friends”, and we played on the neighborhood playground, etc. After all, our subdivision was completely separated from others by a large golf course and a number of big box stores, so how else would we define our neighborhood?

My wife’s case is even more extreme. She grew up in a housing subdivision in an unincorporated area that’s almost totally separated from other housing developments by a forest preserve and railroad tracks. But she has a stronger sense of “neighborhood” than anyone I know. Her neighborhood is practically her extended family, with everyone always walking to others’ homes and her closest friends originating from the neighborhood. So the purely residential and isolated nature of these developments doesn’t inhibit the development of a neighborhood identity — it may even encourage it.

[mhays]

Skyscrapers?! Not necessary at all. You didn't even do the most basic arithmetic?

Apparently the RTP has 22,500,000 square feet in 7,000 acres. So 10% is 700 acres or 30,500,000 square feet. That's the equivalent of square footage having 74% of the land area of the site itself. (Instead of 7.4%...an absurd figure.) If buildings covered even 25% of the site, they wouldn't have to be much taller than three stories on average, not including parking.

It could be multiples of the current density without changing anything about the buildings themselves, except not putting each one in a giant acreage.

Maybe you want patchwork crap all over the landscape, but some of us like cities, or at least less-crappy suburban sprawl.

Edit: In fact, I suspect the average property could have been built on 10% of its own land. The only cost issue would be structuring much of the parking. It's possible that that would have saved enough on roads, utilities, etc., that it would be a net savings in both first cost (including public costs) and operational cost.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mhays

Maybe you want patchwork crap all over the landscape, but some of us like cities, or at least less-crappy suburban sprawl.

Those who like cities should stay in cities. But Apple likes suburbs, apparently because its workforce likes suburbs among other things, and it will probably build a second "headquarters" resembling its suburban primary headquarters. There's no need for density or tall buildings in central North Carolina and most people there aren't especially enamored of dense cities. So to each his own. There's clearly a market for suburban locations and it's silly to cast aspersions on people who like them. Stupidly elitist even.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by mhays

That would be impressive if all that was on 10% of the land.

These companies chose RTP to not be located in some highly populated urban center because there is no need for that for this type of industry. There is still plenty of land to fill in in the future. RTP was strategically located to be near all the major universities in the area.

250 companies employing 60,000 plus on less than 11 square miles on land none of which is located within city limits in a smallish metro located next to the airport is impressive.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Some people on this forum still don't seem to grasp the concept that a lot of people and a lot of companies LIKE suburb-y type stuff. And that expecting them to behave otherwise, in a nation like the US with tons of land, is nothing more than a fantasy.

[iheartthed]

If you saw what they just built in Cupertino, this shouldn't surprise you at all. I also think the Apple workforce skews a little older than the other FAANGs. It's a dinosaur by comparison, having been around since the 1970s vs late-90s/early 2000s founding dates for the other tech giants.

[mhays]

If unchecked sprawl is ok with you, great. I consider it unethical on a bunch of levels. Thankfully many states, like mine, make policy paced on that sort of ethic.

The main Apple headquarters is pretty bad, but that's the denser suburbia I was suggesting, even if probably less than 10x.

The general trend is moving to more urban locations, or making their existing locations more urban through infill. The RTP is 1950s-1980s thinking, the sort of place companies in other regions are abandoning to move closer in, or densifying and urbanizing in place. The places that are about production at a low price tend to like sealed campuses, but the R&D and headquarters tend to rely on relationships and unplanned mixing, and most importantly they find it much easier to recruit young, well-paid techies to urban places, so they've been choosing those.

Once again, the 10x concept doesn't involve higher prices. They can still have their sealed campuses and three-story buildings.

Apple is behind the times even by San Francisco standards...the core city is now gaining much of the tech growth, Silicon Valley tech areas probably are 10x the density of the RTP, and even Downtown San Jose is apparently getting a giant Adobe campus expansion.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by mhays

I didn't say all that...just that I think "opposite" might be what Amazon is looking for.

Seattle isn't an easy candidate for an HQ2, but we're going nuts with expansions on the next level down. For example, Google and Facebook each have several buildings in Seattle and the metro for engineering type uses. Basically every major tech seems to be expanding here. Based on growth in this decade from San Francisco area firms alone, the trajectory is kind of like SF's collective "second center" came here. Not the support centers or manufacturing, but the high-wage stuff.

Why are they coming? Because while we're not an opposite, we're different enough to draw a lot of people who won't go to SF. A young engineer can do well on $100,000 here, without roommates, because our rents are (guessing) 60% of SF's. The climate is also pretty different. Offices are also significantly less expensive. Yet we have a down-scaled version of many of the same urban attributes. In some ways it's really helpful that we're the same time zone.

Our urbanity falls off outside of core areas, but those core areas are densifying at a furious pace. A big part of that is greater Downtown. As of a certain groundbreaking about 10 days ago, the greater-Downtown housing boom just hit 30,000 new units broken ground on since mid-2010. It's possible to live an urban life here. Amazon says 20% of their HQ1 staff walk or bike to work, and other reports suggest that only a quarter drive alone.

Could you give an outsider a definition of what 'greater downtown' is because 30k units in 8 years is insane if the area is smallish at all.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Some people on this forum still don't seem to graph the concept that a lot of people and a lot of companies LIKE suburb-y type stuff. And that expecting them to behave otherwise, in a nation like the US with tons of land, is nothing more than a fantasy.

With both construction and financing costs getting out of hand in the near future, I would argue that greenfield-type developments will become even more popular to investors over the coming years.

[10023]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

With both construction and financing costs getting out of hand in the near future, I would argue that greenfield-type developments will become even more popular to investors over the coming years.

The thing is that these “greenfield” developments shouldn’t be allowed. They’re not really cheaper, they’re just cheaper for companies because they require taxpayers to fund all of the brand-new infrastructure that’s required around them.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by 10023

The thing is that these “greenfield” developments shouldn’t be allowed.

Good thing we don't live in a communist society then, huh?

Living in a country where people are free to spend and invest their money wherever and however they please is pretty awesome IMO.

[cannedairspray]

lmao "shouldn't be allowed"

[mhays]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Could you give an outsider a definition of what 'greater downtown' is because 30k units in 8 years is insane if the area is smallish at all.

South to Pioneer Square and Little Saigon, east past 12th, north to Lower Queen Anne and South Lake Union. It's gerrymandered a bit to capture Dexter up to the 1600 block to the north, and Pike/Pine/Madison past 16th. Figure 2,500 acres or so, equivalent to two miles by two miles. I actually screwed up my count...the 1,050-unit 1200 Stewart project started this month but I didn't realize I had already counted it, so the real number is about 29,000 units.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Good thing we don't live in a communist society then, huh?

Living in a country where people are free to spend and invest their money wherever and however they please is pretty awesome IMO.

Some US cities do a pretty good job of controlling growth...most of the West Coast for starters. And Canada, Europe, etc., often do a much better job. These are capitalist places.

In cities like mine, any land zoned commercial with decent freeway and transit access will cost too much to waste RTP-style. It's allowed but not economical. So even our suburban campuses tend to be the sort I'm suggestion in lieu of the RTP...like the Microsoft HQ campus, which has something like 40,000 workers on 500 acres. I believe they've gotten under 60% drive-alone by the way.