Discussion // "Lucky" Buildings

Just a little link here as I wind down for the weekend...I'll start posting some LA experiences here pretty soon.

I wonder what is it about a particular building that makes it lucky for tech businesses. Sure, there's the old adage of "location, location, location," but that applies more to marketability of real estate relative to local amenities and proximity to potential customers. Software companies, who themselves deal in the "virtual architecture" of computer programming, need neither retail nor on-site storage space to market their products. 

When successful tech companies, like Google and Pixar, do commission real architecture, the typical model of commercial construction, where businesses stay close to exposed and accessible city centers, seems not to apply. This is partly a result of the evolution of commodity to include transactable goods that are imaginary, i.e. data-only, and which impose no logistical demands of any kind, save bandwidth. [Hmm, that's an idea for a study of the economic geography of virtual infrastructure. Is that already a field of interest? I don't know.] Hence, many campuses of tech companies tend to first focus on catering to the health and welfare of the corporate employee (gasp!) to foster innovation. Yet, in doing so, they have already done something innovative  by shaking up the paradigm of corporate architecture. Some examples are even whimsical or theme-parkish in the ways they differ from or reject traditional American corporatism. Check out "Ebay Park" and "Googleplex" and "Pixar Headquarters," the last of which I've already posted a little bit about.

[eBay Park: the tech-bubble era funland]

I would say the one critique of "corporate utopianism" [to coin a new term] is that it is too suburban; it doesn't engage the city, as some might suggest architecture must for the benefit of our posterity. Though both Google's and Pixar's HQs are constructed "sustainably" using similar methods, and house suitably happy employees, there is a question over whether their isolation is an irresponsible rejection of urbanity. Maybe, maybe not. There is not enough information about the  long-term influence of the variable in the future equation: the substance-less commodity. As it is I'm in the process of learning a bit more of the philosophy behind urban design so I might be able to tell you in the near future. Until then, it's up for discussion.

I also can't tell you why that one building is so good at producing business blockbusters. The landlord did start his career selling Persian rugs, maybe there's a magic lamp hidden in the attic, who knows.