More details about Apple’s spaceship-like campus project were released by the city of Cupertino on Friday.
The plan was first unveiled by Apple boss Steve Jobs back in June when he told members of the city council that he wanted to build a new HQ for Apple using “some great architects….some of the best in the world.” He went on to reveal a drawing of a building that looked rather like a spaceship, set in grounds covering 175 acres. The facility would be large enough to hold 13,000 workers.
The information released on Friday shows that the campus would comprise:
- an office, research and development building comprising approximately 2.8 million square feet
- a 1,000 seat corporate auditorium
- a corporate fitness center
- research facilities comprising approximately 300,000 square feet
- a central plant
- associated parking
A number of PDF files on the Cupertino.org website show the design of the campus in a great deal more detail than the drawings released in June. Budding draftsmen and women, as well as those partial to a bit of technical drawing, might want to take a look. The files available for download include:
A few days after Steve Jobs gave his presentation to Cupertino city council members, the mayor of the city said there was “no chance” the council would not approve the structure. However, a review process must still take place. This will include a look at the environmental impact of the campus (such as traffic, noise and air quality) as well as public hearings at the planning commission and the city council. Anyone going to bet against the Apple spaceship landing?
Hello all. Sorry I couldn’t comment sooner, I’ve been out of town. Just to clear things up (hopefully), Macskeeball, your mom was right, I meant: “budding male and female draftspeople, rather than budding draftspeople and also women”.
And for the record, to clarify the confusion over the removal (or not) of that sentence somewhere along the line – I didn’t remove it, or put it back in if it was ever removed.
I hope that helps.
Why dont they say who the archiyect is?
Anyone see the tech drawing titles? Culprit is revealed
What do you mean? I looked at the link text and the PDFs but I’m still not sure what you’re talking about here.
“Budding draftsmen and women, as well as those partial to a bit of technical drawing, might want to take a look.”
Why do you think that details about Apple’s plans for a new headquarters would be of more interest to women than men? It seems like you may be stereotyping women in some way. Care to clarify?
Huh? I think you lost everyone with that. The story doesn’t seem sexist at all.
I don’t think the overall story is at all sexist. I am specifically commenting on the one sentence I quoted. What was the author’s reason for singling out women there? Why does he think that they would be especially interested? I don’t see a reason why their interest on this topic would be any different than men’s interest, and I’d like Mr. Mogg to clarify.
“Budding draftsmen and women, as well as those partial to a bit of technical drawing, might want to take a look.”
I can’t even find that sentence in the story. Maybe he removed it?
Ah, you’re right. He did. Still no response beyond that, however.
Well, at least the controversy is over. Better safe than sorry.
Now it’s been added back to this site’s copy of the article. I’m not sure what to think about that. All I want is a strikethrough, an editor’s note, and/or a comment from the author or editor. Something that addresses the complaint without pretending that the sentence was never in the article.
I do appreciate that Digital Trends is responding in some way to these comments, but it’s still a little weird how they’re handling it.
I read the article aloud to my mom to get her thoughts, and she pointed out that the author may have simply meant budding male and female draftspeople, rather than budding draftspeople and also women (just for being women). So it appears that I actually misinterpreted politically-correct wording as sexism. Oops! Sorry about all that.
No problem! No harm done.
This article was also posted to Yahoo News, and the line I quoted can still be seen in that version (at least for now): http://news.yahoo.com/cupertino-releases-more-apples-proposed-spaceship-hq-065604739.html
Just to show that I’m not making all this up, this article was syndicated to Yahoo News (where I first saw it) and, at least for now, that copy of the article still has the sentence (4th paragraph). The comment system here isn’t letting me post comments with normal URLs, but here goes.
htt p : / / news DOT yahoo DOT com / cupertino-releases-more-apples-proposed-spaceship-hq-065604739 DOT h t m l
Darn. I was kinda hoping you were making things up and a little crazy.
Just a tiny bit…
J/K