Google is Building a 153-Acre Neighborhood By Its Headquarters - Slashdot

Posted by EditorDavid

• ›

  ... people who think it isn't enough for Google to track every web page they visit, but want Google to know what they eat and when they shit.
  • 1 hidden comment

• I was born one morning when they forgot the Doodle
  I picked up my laptop and I walked to the Google
  I wrote sixteen scripts in Python and Go
  And the scrum boss said, "Well, a-bless my soul"

  You code sixteen scripts, what do you get?
  Another day older and deeper in debt
  Saint Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go
  I owe my soul to Pichai's company store

  • 1 hidden comment

  • Re:

    That was excellent. Thank you. Bravo.

  • Re:

    Exactly what I was thinking. We are back to the company town, the company store.

    Guthrie wrote about waiting driving to California to get a job. He and others had to wait in the company camp. The company was happy to loan money for food.

    The laws are much different now. But the risks are real.

    • Re:

      For Google this is an improvement. Before, employees never left the office - slept on the floor, ate there, got their haircut there. At least now they can go "home."

      • Re:

        Do you lose your house if you leave google?

    • Re: Apologies to Tennesee Ernie Ford

      Not really. Company towns grew up based on the company owning all of the real estate within a reasonable commuting distance* of a work site. Employees had no option other than to live and shop there. 153 acres is small from a walkable point of view. Want to shop somewhere else? No problem. It's only a few blocks.

      *Many of these were logging or mining operations far from civilization. Where the infrastructure and even the concept of commuting didn't exist.

  • Re:

    Song needs to be titled, "The Data Miner"

• • Re:

    Technically correct, 16G in Azure is stupid expensive.

• Giant companies in China do this too: they provide housing in high-value areas (and often run restaurants, stores and everything else to such an extent that they run their own currency on company grounds).

  And you know what that does? Incentivize the workers to accept any demands from their employers. Because if you lose your job, you lose your home.

  Somehow I'm not surprised one bit Google wants to do this. They've had a few high-profile wildcats opening their traps in the news recently that they probably could have squelched more easily with that sort of coercive power. Not to mention, this will discourage high-value employee pilfering from other big tech companies.

  • Giant companies in China do this too: they provide housing in high-value areas (and often run restaurants, stores and everything else to such an extent that they run their own currency on company grounds).

    You try to paint it as malicious, but the fact is many workers in China find work hundreds of miles from their home. So looking for a place to live is a huge barrier, and company providing housing is a very pragmatic way of solving this, and in some case, it is the only practical way for factories/companies to hire enough workers.

    Yeah, workers would lose their company quarter if they leave their job, but they also have no reason to stay there after they leave their job. Most workers have family home to go back to, Chinese culture have no problem living with parents, unlike in America where it is looked down upon, and many family home in China is a multi-storey building housing multi-generations together. It is nothing unusual for some workers, having went back to family home for Chinese New Year, simply decide to quit and not go back to city, and then some months/years later again go out to find work again. The company quarter is in no way holding those works hostage.

    Living in a company town right next to where you work is a hundred times better than living in your car in the parking lot outside the office, which is how people currently do in America.

    • Re:

      You try to paint it as malicious, but the fact is many workers in China find work hundreds of miles from their home. So looking for a place to live is a huge barrier,

      Assuming white collar positions: telework. No need for company housing.

    • Re:

      That doesn't make it not malicious. Obviously.

      It's a very pragmatic way to make workers desperate to not lose their jobs.

      What about workers whose family has passed? What about workers who don't want to live with their families because they have fallen out? Oh wait, I forgot that's not allowed in China either.

      False dichotomy is false, and your cheerleading is based on nonsense.

      • Re:

        Don't be obtuse. I just explained that most workers have they own home back where they came from, and company housing in no way make anyone "desperate". You just ignored and cut out my explanation then repeat your talking point.

        Workers whose family have passed inherit the family house (have you forgotten One Child Policy? Most cases there is no siblings to fight for the house), making them *even less dependent* on company housing. I know it is customary for America kids to have a fall out with family aft

        • Re:

          Pot kettle black

          Nobody claimed that company housing makes people desperate. It's loss of housing that does that. Learn to read, or think, or whatever it is you're not doing here.

          Like I said, you're being obtuse.

    • It may not be intended maliciously (by Google), but living and working in Googletown doesn't sound appealing, does it? By the time you've made friends, perhaps met a partner (yeah, I know, not on slashdot), and set down some roots in the Mountain View area, you lose your job, and all of that at the same time. Sounds just peachy to me. The comparisons with China start to get closer to US/Western thinking if you're able to be mercenary about it and know that you shouldn't get too used to anything you have, then you could survive it, but surely that's no way to live, is it?

      I personally can't imagine anything worse than living in a company town. Thankfully, the UK tends to have mixed use areas by default, and we also don't have the HQ of too many 'mega corps'. We also have housing issues, but nothing as bad as the Silicon Valley experience, and whilst our policies to build "affordable homes" are woefully terrible, they do at least build a few homes.

      Our recent pandemic experiences have, if anything, helped the housing issues in cities because a lot of people have moved out - likely never to return. It hasn't made house prices fall much, if at all, but it's stopped them rising quite so crazily. The excess of office space problem is yet to play out in any meaningful sense, but if that does anything, it'll make even more residential available (perhaps not "affordable", but at least it'll add to the available stock).

      The thing I can't really work out is why is Google doubling-down on office space? This whole project is really about making offices and then putting some residential around it so you can fill it. But why? Why not let people live where they want and just Video Conference into work as necessary? I can understand Google wanting to fill their existing (expensive) offices, but why would you want to build even more of them?

      • 1 hidden comment
  • There's a serious affordable housing shortage in what used to be "upper middle class" suburbia. In my Boston suburb, the median price of a house is about twice what a family with median income can afford. It may be even worse in Mountain View. So the cities are pushing developers to build "affordable" housing, and the definition is evolving from covering only low-income housing to offering space for families that are not in the top 5-10% or so ("low and middle income") in the jargon of the post. Problem is that the developers (Google now among them) want the rest of the housing to be "market price", meaning out of reach to anyone out of the top 5-10% or so. So it's really not going to solve any housing problems for the rest of us. It's just more suburban gentrification that will make housing even less affordable than it is now.
    • 1 hidden comment

  • Re:

    It depends. The fact it's doing lower cost housing seems to imply it's actually just a general mixed use work-live-play development. The only "company" part is that Google is behind it. (Which isn't too unusual - Google has been behind many other development projects).

    Of course, the big question is who is allowed to own property there. If you are required to be a Google employee, then yes, it's bad. If anyone can own it and move it, then it's less problematic.

    For Google it makes a lot of sense - if you have

• • Re:

    ...Raccoon City.
    • 1 hidden comment

  • Re:

    If you think public funding is bad, just wait and see how a corporation would cut costs. The public votes (by proxy) on their own tax rates and deal with the consequences. Corporations have no public incentive at all. They would be able to set their own tax rates and change them at will. You could "just move" if there wasn't a problem with affordable housing in the first place.

  • Re:

    Microsoft is not in California

    • Re:

      wat [microsoft.com]

  • Re: Mine Towns

    Dark city.

• Google "mill village" and perhaps "Lewis Hine"

• "Originally, the developers planned to dedicate 20% of the new housing to affordable units, but the approved plan sets aside only 15% for lower- and middle-income housing. Google lowered the target to make the project viable in an uncertain economic climate, a spokesperson told SFGATE. This past January, the firm laid off 12,000 workers."

  If there is economic uncertainty, wouldn't it make sense to build more lower cost housing, not less, giving the houses a better chance of getting sold?

  • Nevermind

    No caffeine yet. It didn't occur to me they are renting out, not selling the housing.

    Company town. Lose your job, lose your home.

    • Re:

      "Company town?" How did you draw that conclusion?

      Why do you imagine Google wants to be landlord for 7,000 units (townhouses? Condos?) and run all the retail stores?

      The classic definition of a company town is where the residents are geographically distant from other communities, the company owns the housing, owns the stores, and pays employees in "company script" usable only at company stores.

      Mountain View is not a remote location, the housing units are likely an investment not an on-going concern for Google

  • If there is economic uncertainty, wouldn't it make sense to build more lower cost housing, not less, giving the houses a better chance of getting sold?

    No. In projects like this, "low cost housing" means "sold or rented at a loss in order to ensure the government allows you to build your project." Land and construction costs in the SF Bay area are some of if not the most expensive in the US. "Low cost" housing wouldn't be built a all if not mandated (and yes, I do understand that service employees etc need somewhere to live as well--I'm not taking a moral or political stance here).

    • Re:

      Having Google fund the housing is one thing, having them own it at the end is another.

      Getting housing from an employer is always problematic. If we're turning to that as a solution, we've already failed as a society. It will absolutely create abuse.

• So much for a commitment to remote work which most tech people seem to love.

  I wonder if there will still be Google employees living in vans.

  • Re:

    Google laid off 12,000 workers (worldwide), they likely have a surplus of office space fill up.

    They are proposing a total of 3 million square feet of office space and 7,000 housing units.

    Are they building the office space specifically for themselves?

    Are the 7,000 units restricted to only google employees?

    Is Google going to operate any of the retail shops or restaurants in the community?

    The answer to each question is "No".

• 'member when google was a search engines with a motto of don't be evil? Good times.
• Thankfully, a "not my circus, not my monkeys" problem. I will never work for Google.

  Google employees are people who probably have the easiest times finding new jobs. Should they come to be unhappy at Google they can find a new job and just move. Potential Google employees are also smart enough to see this as a potential trap, and assuming there are places nearby off of Google property to rent/buy, they could do that from the start.

  • Re:

    If Google lets you, that is. Or at least doesn't make it very, very tempting to become part of the "Google family". Because I'm fairly sure that they'll rope you in with convenience. No need to worry about your payments, no need to worry about getting staff to clean your apartment, Google takes care of that. The Google fridge in your Google apartment knows what's running low and you can easily order it, it will be delivered right to your fridge while you're at work. There's going to be Google events and wee

    • Re:

      I thought about Google mandating company housing, but I think they would leave themselves open for legal trouble.

      I agree they could set things up to make living in company housing enticingly convenient ( beyond a shorter commute ) and structuring things so that people who do not live there feel ostracized. However tech people are used to being outsiders, and I can see some potential Google employees renting/buying their own places so they will have one less thing to be tangled up in if they decide to get

      • Re:

        Well, considering that changing jobs very often means moving anyway, that incentive "keep working here or you lose your house" isn't that big a deal. But let's face it, techies are generally convenience sluts. We don't want to be bothered with the petty trivialities of life like washing, cleaning, grocery shopping and working around the house. Sure, some might occasionally enjoy having their little garden, but if it wasn't for mowing robots, our lawns would look like some sort of primordial forest.

        Offering

        • Re:

          convenience sluts

          Fair point.

          Nothing I will ever have to worry about though.:-)

• the youtube channel "not just bikes" describe the horrendous problems with american car culture and basically reasons that you need to design cities from start to be walkable for them to be safe and sound https://www.youtube.com/@NotJu... [youtube.com]

• You wouldn't want to order a steak at a diner, or salmon at a fast food joint. Every restaurant has signature dishes that you should stick to, because that's what they're good at making.

  Google is good at building large-scale software like search, maps, operating systems (Android) and web browsers. They probably won't be so good at building and managing a housing development. Oh sure, they'll probably spend lots of (unnecessary) money making the houses "nice," but eventually their priorities will shift, and

  • Re:

    It's 7,000 units in an area that lacks a continual flow of low-skill construction workers. Unlike your mythical Houston development of the same size, I don't think they are starting with open space - are there really 153 clear acres in Mountain View?

• Looking more and more like the Apple TV show "Severence".
• Or will it be just more gentrification, out-of-reach of 99% of everyone?
  • 1 hidden comment

  • Re:

    15% will be "affordable", but I think that term has a different meaning in Mountain View than it does on Main Street...

• And they are setting aside space for ONE school?

  I can only imagine the impact such a facility will have on the local school district as the residents start families...