Discussion:
[FoRK] Engineering rules of thumb and Amazon's HQ2 effort
Ken Meltsner
2017-09-12 02:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Are our tech giants getting a bad case of edifice complex? First
Apple with the "spaceship" HQ, and now Amazon putting out an RFP for
their second headquarters.

Last week, sdw mentioned one of the most famous engineering "laws"
(Postel's). Well, way back at my first professional, permanent job
(GE R&D), Stephen Spacil, one of my colleagues, had come up with an
engineering "law" that ought to be better known:

By the time you build a new facility for an opportunity, the
opportunity will have passed.

There were many examples at GE in Niskayuna, like the coal
gasification building that wasn't completed until coal gasification
was shown to be a dead end both economically and technically, or the
lab space purpose-built for a division that was sold shortly before
the lab was completed.

And the corollary is that junky buildings, like MIT's famous Building
20 [1] (built as temporary lab space during WWII, but used for more
than 50 years) are often the most productive spaces for novel ideas
because no one cared what happened to it -- labs routinely drilled
holes in walls and floors to make space or connections for unwieldy
equipment, for example.

Really makes me wonder about Apple's new headquarters which is
probably too beautiful to hack if a flexible space is needed, and now
Amazon's stated goal of adding a second headquarters.


Ken Meltsner

[1] Brand, Stewart (1995). How buildings learn: what happens after
they're built. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-013996-9., cited
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20
--
After 30+ years of email, I have used up my supply of clever .sig material.
J. Andrew Rogers
2017-09-12 04:37:19 UTC
Permalink
See also: The curse of building a shiny new headquarters

http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11 <http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11>

I generally buy the idea that the distraction of creating the perfect new building/monument tends to steal attention from ruthlessly executing the business.

Andrew
Post by Ken Meltsner
Are our tech giants getting a bad case of edifice complex? First
Apple with the "spaceship" HQ, and now Amazon putting out an RFP for
their second headquarters.
Last week, sdw mentioned one of the most famous engineering "laws"
(Postel's). Well, way back at my first professional, permanent job
(GE R&D), Stephen Spacil, one of my colleagues, had come up with an
By the time you build a new facility for an opportunity, the
opportunity will have passed.
There were many examples at GE in Niskayuna, like the coal
gasification building that wasn't completed until coal gasification
was shown to be a dead end both economically and technically, or the
lab space purpose-built for a division that was sold shortly before
the lab was completed.
And the corollary is that junky buildings, like MIT's famous Building
20 [1] (built as temporary lab space during WWII, but used for more
than 50 years) are often the most productive spaces for novel ideas
because no one cared what happened to it -- labs routinely drilled
holes in walls and floors to make space or connections for unwieldy
equipment, for example.
Really makes me wonder about Apple's new headquarters which is
probably too beautiful to hack if a flexible space is needed, and now
Amazon's stated goal of adding a second headquarters.
Ken Meltsner
[1] Brand, Stewart (1995). How buildings learn: what happens after
they're built. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-013996-9., cited
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20
--
After 30+ years of email, I have used up my supply of clever .sig material.
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
Stephen D. Williams
2017-09-12 05:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Andrew Rogers
See also: The curse of building a shiny new headquarters
http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11 <http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11>
I generally buy the idea that the distraction of creating the perfect new building/monument tends to steal attention from ruthlessly executing the business.
That is a nicely ambiguous phrase...  For Apple and Amazon (and formerly Google and Facebook), faced with way too much cash, it is a
logical option.  It could pay off in various ways, but just eating up some cash is probably justification enough.

As long as buildings are built large enough to hold one of these for my office, I'm good.  I'll even pay for it myself.
http://www.officepod.co.uk/
Or:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259583/Home-Darth-Vader-office-future-The-designer-workroom-intended-improve-family-life-end-commuting.html

Of course what I really want is:
Loading Image.../revision/latest?cb=20130219043321

But I'll probably have to settle for:
https://www.cnet.com/news/helmfon-noise-isolating-helmet-hochu-rayu-work/

sdw
Post by J. Andrew Rogers
Andrew
Post by Ken Meltsner
Are our tech giants getting a bad case of edifice complex? First
Apple with the "spaceship" HQ, and now Amazon putting out an RFP for
their second headquarters.
Last week, sdw mentioned one of the most famous engineering "laws"
(Postel's). Well, way back at my first professional, permanent job
(GE R&D), Stephen Spacil, one of my colleagues, had come up with an
By the time you build a new facility for an opportunity, the
opportunity will have passed.
There were many examples at GE in Niskayuna, like the coal
gasification building that wasn't completed until coal gasification
was shown to be a dead end both economically and technically, or the
lab space purpose-built for a division that was sold shortly before
the lab was completed.
And the corollary is that junky buildings, like MIT's famous Building
20 [1] (built as temporary lab space during WWII, but used for more
than 50 years) are often the most productive spaces for novel ideas
because no one cared what happened to it -- labs routinely drilled
holes in walls and floors to make space or connections for unwieldy
equipment, for example.
Really makes me wonder about Apple's new headquarters which is
probably too beautiful to hack if a flexible space is needed, and now
Amazon's stated goal of adding a second headquarters.
Ken Meltsner
[1] Brand, Stewart (1995). How buildings learn: what happens after
they're built. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-013996-9., cited
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20
--
After 30+ years of email, I have used up my supply of clever .sig material.
Joseph S. Barrera III
2017-09-12 06:23:31 UTC
Permalink
"Formerly Google and Facebook"? What does formerly mean? What does "way too
much cash" mean? When did Google ever build a shiny new headquarters? The
only connection between Google and "shiny new headquarters" is that Google
bought SGI's poorly timed shiny new headquarters.
Post by J. Andrew Rogers
See also: The curse of building a shiny new headquarters
http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11 <
http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11>
I generally buy the idea that the distraction of creating the perfect new
building/monument tends to steal attention from ruthlessly executing the
business.
That is a nicely ambiguous phrase... For Apple and Amazon (and formerly
Google and Facebook), faced with way too much cash, it is a logical
option. It could pay off in various ways, but just eating up some cash is
probably justification enough.
As long as buildings are built large enough to hold one of these for my
office, I'm good. I'll even pay for it myself.
http://www.officepod.co.uk/
Or: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259583/Home-
Darth-Vader-office-future-The-designer-workroom-intended-
improve-family-life-end-commuting.html
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/b/bf/
MeditationChamber-ESB.png/revision/latest?cb=20130219043321
https://www.cnet.com/news/helmfon-noise-isolating-helmet-hochu-rayu-work/
sdw
Post by J. Andrew Rogers
Andrew
Post by Ken Meltsner
Are our tech giants getting a bad case of edifice complex? First
Apple with the "spaceship" HQ, and now Amazon putting out an RFP for
their second headquarters.
Last week, sdw mentioned one of the most famous engineering "laws"
(Postel's). Well, way back at my first professional, permanent job
(GE R&D), Stephen Spacil, one of my colleagues, had come up with an
By the time you build a new facility for an opportunity, the
opportunity will have passed.
There were many examples at GE in Niskayuna, like the coal
gasification building that wasn't completed until coal gasification
was shown to be a dead end both economically and technically, or the
lab space purpose-built for a division that was sold shortly before
the lab was completed.
And the corollary is that junky buildings, like MIT's famous Building
20 [1] (built as temporary lab space during WWII, but used for more
than 50 years) are often the most productive spaces for novel ideas
because no one cared what happened to it -- labs routinely drilled
holes in walls and floors to make space or connections for unwieldy
equipment, for example.
Really makes me wonder about Apple's new headquarters which is
probably too beautiful to hack if a flexible space is needed, and now
Amazon's stated goal of adding a second headquarters.
Ken Meltsner
[1] Brand, Stewart (1995). How buildings learn: what happens after
they're built. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-013996-9., cited
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20
--
After 30+ years of email, I have used up my supply of clever .sig material.
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
Stephen D. Williams
2017-09-12 19:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Yes, the SGI / MV land grab, and plans for extensive shiny new offices.

sdw
Post by Joseph S. Barrera III
"Formerly Google and Facebook"? What does formerly mean? What does "way too
much cash" mean? When did Google ever build a shiny new headquarters? The
only connection between Google and "shiny new headquarters" is that Google
bought SGI's poorly timed shiny new headquarters.
Post by J. Andrew Rogers
See also: The curse of building a shiny new headquarters
http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11 <
http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11>
I generally buy the idea that the distraction of creating the perfect new
building/monument tends to steal attention from ruthlessly executing the
business.
That is a nicely ambiguous phrase... For Apple and Amazon (and formerly
Google and Facebook), faced with way too much cash, it is a logical
option. It could pay off in various ways, but just eating up some cash is
probably justification enough.
As long as buildings are built large enough to hold one of these for my
office, I'm good. I'll even pay for it myself.
http://www.officepod.co.uk/
Or: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259583/Home-
Darth-Vader-office-future-The-designer-workroom-intended-
improve-family-life-end-commuting.html
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/b/bf/
MeditationChamber-ESB.png/revision/latest?cb=20130219043321
https://www.cnet.com/news/helmfon-noise-isolating-helmet-hochu-rayu-work/
sdw
Joseph S. Barrera III
2017-09-12 06:30:00 UTC
Permalink
"but just eating up some cash is probably justification enough"

You understand that cash is not fissile, right? It doesn't, like, explode
if you have too much.
Post by J. Andrew Rogers
See also: The curse of building a shiny new headquarters
http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11 <
http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11>
I generally buy the idea that the distraction of creating the perfect new
building/monument tends to steal attention from ruthlessly executing the
business.
That is a nicely ambiguous phrase... For Apple and Amazon (and formerly
Google and Facebook), faced with way too much cash, it is a logical
option. It could pay off in various ways, but just eating up some cash is
probably justification enough.
As long as buildings are built large enough to hold one of these for my
office, I'm good. I'll even pay for it myself.
http://www.officepod.co.uk/
Or: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259583/Home-
Darth-Vader-office-future-The-designer-workroom-intended-
improve-family-life-end-commuting.html
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/b/bf/
MeditationChamber-ESB.png/revision/latest?cb=20130219043321
https://www.cnet.com/news/helmfon-noise-isolating-helmet-hochu-rayu-work/
sdw
Post by J. Andrew Rogers
Andrew
Post by Ken Meltsner
Are our tech giants getting a bad case of edifice complex? First
Apple with the "spaceship" HQ, and now Amazon putting out an RFP for
their second headquarters.
Last week, sdw mentioned one of the most famous engineering "laws"
(Postel's). Well, way back at my first professional, permanent job
(GE R&D), Stephen Spacil, one of my colleagues, had come up with an
By the time you build a new facility for an opportunity, the
opportunity will have passed.
There were many examples at GE in Niskayuna, like the coal
gasification building that wasn't completed until coal gasification
was shown to be a dead end both economically and technically, or the
lab space purpose-built for a division that was sold shortly before
the lab was completed.
And the corollary is that junky buildings, like MIT's famous Building
20 [1] (built as temporary lab space during WWII, but used for more
than 50 years) are often the most productive spaces for novel ideas
because no one cared what happened to it -- labs routinely drilled
holes in walls and floors to make space or connections for unwieldy
equipment, for example.
Really makes me wonder about Apple's new headquarters which is
probably too beautiful to hack if a flexible space is needed, and now
Amazon's stated goal of adding a second headquarters.
Ken Meltsner
[1] Brand, Stewart (1995). How buildings learn: what happens after
they're built. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-013996-9., cited
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20
--
After 30+ years of email, I have used up my supply of clever .sig material.
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
Stephen D. Williams
2017-09-12 19:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Stand around with more available cash than any other entity long enough and someone will think of something eventually.

sdw
Post by Joseph S. Barrera III
"but just eating up some cash is probably justification enough"
You understand that cash is not fissile, right? It doesn't, like, explode
if you have too much.
Post by J. Andrew Rogers
See also: The curse of building a shiny new headquarters
http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11 <
http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-2009-11>
I generally buy the idea that the distraction of creating the perfect new
building/monument tends to steal attention from ruthlessly executing the
business.
That is a nicely ambiguous phrase... For Apple and Amazon (and formerly
Google and Facebook), faced with way too much cash, it is a logical
option. It could pay off in various ways, but just eating up some cash is
probably justification enough.
As long as buildings are built large enough to hold one of these for my
office, I'm good. I'll even pay for it myself.
http://www.officepod.co.uk/
Or: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259583/Home-
Darth-Vader-office-future-The-designer-workroom-intended-
improve-family-life-end-commuting.html
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/b/bf/
MeditationChamber-ESB.png/revision/latest?cb=20130219043321
https://www.cnet.com/news/helmfon-noise-isolating-helmet-hochu-rayu-work/
sdw
Gregory Alan Bolcer
2017-09-12 13:06:43 UTC
Permalink
My "award winning" office building at UCI for a lot of years was
disposable. They built it and then tore it down not soon after.

Greg

http://www.ocregister.com/2007/01/23/gehry-building-at-uci-razed/

University officials contend that the Gehry building was not intended as
a long-term, permanent structure, and that it was falling apart and
needed major, costly renovations.

The building helped bring UCI to national prominence in architectural
circles.

Time magazine featured it prominently in a profile on Gehry, and called
it “improbably beautiful.”
Post by Ken Meltsner
Are our tech giants getting a bad case of edifice complex? First
Apple with the "spaceship" HQ, and now Amazon putting out an RFP for
their second headquarters.
Last week, sdw mentioned one of the most famous engineering "laws"
(Postel's). Well, way back at my first professional, permanent job
(GE R&D), Stephen Spacil, one of my colleagues, had come up with an
By the time you build a new facility for an opportunity, the
opportunity will have passed.
There were many examples at GE in Niskayuna, like the coal
gasification building that wasn't completed until coal gasification
was shown to be a dead end both economically and technically, or the
lab space purpose-built for a division that was sold shortly before
the lab was completed.
And the corollary is that junky buildings, like MIT's famous Building
20 [1] (built as temporary lab space during WWII, but used for more
than 50 years) are often the most productive spaces for novel ideas
because no one cared what happened to it -- labs routinely drilled
holes in walls and floors to make space or connections for unwieldy
equipment, for example.
Really makes me wonder about Apple's new headquarters which is
probably too beautiful to hack if a flexible space is needed, and now
Amazon's stated goal of adding a second headquarters.
Ken Meltsner
[1] Brand, Stewart (1995). How buildings learn: what happens after
they're built. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-013996-9., cited
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20
_______________________________________________
Ken Meltsner
2017-09-12 16:55:14 UTC
Permalink
I suppose this should have been expected from an architect who got his
start designing cardboard furniture[1], but it may be more of a case
of "Frank Lloyd Wright"-ism -- great-looking buildings designed with
little attention to durability (esp. roofs) or maintainability, or in
many cases, usability.

Here in Portland we have an iconic Michael Graves building which has
never been well-liked and needs extensive interior and exterior work.
[2]

Back to working on software which is likely to last a substantially
shorter time...

Ken

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy_Edges
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Building
My "award winning" office building at UCI for a lot of years was disposable.
They built it and then tore it down not soon after.
Greg
http://www.ocregister.com/2007/01/23/gehry-building-at-uci-razed/
University officials contend that the Gehry building was not intended as a
long-term, permanent structure, and that it was falling apart and needed
major, costly renovations.
The building helped bring UCI to national prominence in architectural
circles.
Time magazine featured it prominently in a profile on Gehry, and called it
“improbably beautiful.”
Post by Ken Meltsner
Are our tech giants getting a bad case of edifice complex? First
Apple with the "spaceship" HQ, and now Amazon putting out an RFP for
their second headquarters.
Last week, sdw mentioned one of the most famous engineering "laws"
(Postel's). Well, way back at my first professional, permanent job
(GE R&D), Stephen Spacil, one of my colleagues, had come up with an
By the time you build a new facility for an opportunity, the
opportunity will have passed.
There were many examples at GE in Niskayuna, like the coal
gasification building that wasn't completed until coal gasification
was shown to be a dead end both economically and technically, or the
lab space purpose-built for a division that was sold shortly before
the lab was completed.
And the corollary is that junky buildings, like MIT's famous Building
20 [1] (built as temporary lab space during WWII, but used for more
than 50 years) are often the most productive spaces for novel ideas
because no one cared what happened to it -- labs routinely drilled
holes in walls and floors to make space or connections for unwieldy
equipment, for example.
Really makes me wonder about Apple's new headquarters which is
probably too beautiful to hack if a flexible space is needed, and now
Amazon's stated goal of adding a second headquarters.
Ken Meltsner
[1] Brand, Stewart (1995). How buildings learn: what happens after
they're built. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-013996-9., cited
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
--
After 30+ years of email, I have used up my supply of clever .sig material.

_______________________________________________
FoRK
Joseph S. Barrera III
2017-09-12 16:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Back to working on software which is likely to last a substantially shorter
time...

The secret to writing long-lasting software? Write a crappy prototype that
you'd be ashamed to put your name to.
I suppose this should have been expected from an architect who got his
start designing cardboard furniture[1], but it may be more of a case
of "Frank Lloyd Wright"-ism -- great-looking buildings designed with
little attention to durability (esp. roofs) or maintainability, or in
many cases, usability.
Here in Portland we have an iconic Michael Graves building which has
never been well-liked and needs extensive interior and exterior work.
[2]
Back to working on software which is likely to last a substantially
shorter time...
Ken
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy_Edges
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Building
Post by Gregory Alan Bolcer
My "award winning" office building at UCI for a lot of years was
disposable.
Post by Gregory Alan Bolcer
They built it and then tore it down not soon after.
Greg
http://www.ocregister.com/2007/01/23/gehry-building-at-uci-razed/
University officials contend that the Gehry building was not intended as
a
Post by Gregory Alan Bolcer
long-term, permanent structure, and that it was falling apart and needed
major, costly renovations.
The building helped bring UCI to national prominence in architectural
circles.
Time magazine featured it prominently in a profile on Gehry, and called
it
Post by Gregory Alan Bolcer
“improbably beautiful.”
Post by Ken Meltsner
Are our tech giants getting a bad case of edifice complex? First
Apple with the "spaceship" HQ, and now Amazon putting out an RFP for
their second headquarters.
Last week, sdw mentioned one of the most famous engineering "laws"
(Postel's). Well, way back at my first professional, permanent job
(GE R&D), Stephen Spacil, one of my colleagues, had come up with an
By the time you build a new facility for an opportunity, the
opportunity will have passed.
There were many examples at GE in Niskayuna, like the coal
gasification building that wasn't completed until coal gasification
was shown to be a dead end both economically and technically, or the
lab space purpose-built for a division that was sold shortly before
the lab was completed.
And the corollary is that junky buildings, like MIT's famous Building
20 [1] (built as temporary lab space during WWII, but used for more
than 50 years) are often the most productive spaces for novel ideas
because no one cared what happened to it -- labs routinely drilled
holes in walls and floors to make space or connections for unwieldy
equipment, for example.
Really makes me wonder about Apple's new headquarters which is
probably too beautiful to hack if a flexible space is needed, and now
Amazon's stated goal of adding a second headquarters.
Ken Meltsner
[1] Brand, Stewart (1995). How buildings learn: what happens after
they're built. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-013996-9., cited
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
--
After 30+ years of email, I have used up my supply of clever .sig material.
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
Sean Conner
2017-09-13 20:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph S. Barrera III
Back to working on software which is likely to last a substantially shorter
time...
The secret to writing long-lasting software? Write a crappy prototype that
you'd be ashamed to put your name to.
My "proof-of-concept" program was live, in production, for over a month
before I found out about it.

-spc (Oh crap! Oh crap! Oh crap!)
Aaron Burt
2017-09-15 02:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Conner
My "proof-of-concept" program was live, in production, for over a month
before I found out about it.
I believe this is the reason for 90% of production Rails deployments.
Tom Higgins
2017-10-05 01:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Growing up in NYC during the 70's and 80's gave me a warped sense of HQs
and Location as Message.

McGrawHill had a sweet setup on 6th ave as well as Burlington Mills who
always seemed to have a interactive display about textiles. IBM always had
one if not two exhibits that folks could walk thru and learn about the
brave new world of computers. It was almost as if the 64 Worlds Fair was
still in the zeitgiest and bringing the public "into" your corporate world
was the way to build brand entanglements.
From the mid 80s on it was always my thought that the idea of the office
would move out to a more distributed model, that telecommuting (a phrase
that has outlived its usefulness but still holds meaning) or project colab
over the wires would take hold.

I remember when Steve Jackson Games tried to build a MUD based office set
up for folks to move in and do biz in. Much hope little real adoption.
Even now that we have AR, VR, fast connectivity and always on devices all
but grafted onto our palms we still build edifices to meatspace
localization.

If it were the case these were more accessible to the masses, as were the
70s era Worlds Fair style exhibits, I could see the use. And yes servers do
not admin themselves..yet...that metal needs a steady hand to maintain..but
the insistence on communal breakfast cereal strewn yoga ball obstacle
courses makes me sorry for the future we could have had.

Add to all that the insufferable traffic and jacked up living costs these
things brought on past the point that a Tennis Court Oath is in order
...and yea so Work Smarter??? Anyone ...anyone....Bueller.


-tom(IT Kibbutz Bound)wsmf nee whore nee higgins
Gregory Alan Bolcer
2017-10-05 02:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Just for the record, visiting the Intel Museum in San Jose is one of my
first and fondest memories of Silicon Valley.

Loading...