Apple – Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

By - May 3rd, 2013

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

Revised campus plans for Apple’s http://freshnessmag.com/2011/08/16/new-renderings-of-future-apple-headquarters-released/” target=”_blank”>future headquarters were recently unveiled by the city of Cupertino, featuring changes initiated to shave $1 billion from the $5 billion budget (originally set at $3 billion). One of the most obvious revisions by architects http://fosterandpartners.com/” target=”_blank”>Foster + Partners was to do away with Apple’s classic white detailing, instead draping the circular 2.8 million square foot monolith in black. The four-story structure is meant to function as the centerpiece of the 176-acre campus, holding 12,000 of Apple’s 14,200 employees. In addition to state of the art meeting and office space, the building will feature a 60,000 square foot dining area, fitted with an outdoor terrace that extends into the orchard and woodlands of the inner courtyard. Separate facilities include a 100,000 square foot corporate fitness center, a 1,000-seat Corporate Auditorium, and a four-story parking garage near Interstate 280, which, together with the Main Building’s underground parking garage, accommodates 10,980 cars. Green initiatives include 700,000 square feet of rooftop solar panels (enough to generate 8 megawatts of power), plus 100 acres of OLIN-designed green space resembling the natural Northern California landscape. The completion date for the project has been reset to 2016.

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plans

Apple   Cupertino Campus Updated Plansvia: http://archdaily.com/367240/updated-plans-released-for-foster-partners-apple-campus-in-cupertino/” target=”_blank”>ArchDaily

0 comments