A New Slice of the Apple – The Apple Ring, aka Apple Park
The Apple Ring, formally known as Apple Park, stands as one of Silicon Valley’s most innovative architectural feats. Serving as Apple’s corporate headquarters in Cupertino, California, this stunning circular building—often likened to a spaceship—represents a landmark of modern design and a hub of technological innovation. Conceived by Apple’s late co-founder, Steve Jobs, and brought to life by British architect Sir Norman Foster, Apple Park encapsulates Apple’s commitment to sustainability, creativity, and functionality. With its massive, ring-shaped structure, sprawling green spaces, and cutting-edge technology, Apple Park has redefined what a corporate campus can be, blending aesthetics with purpose to foster a collaborative work environment that embodies the brand’s values. This introduction provides a glimpse into the Apple Ring from an ethical point of view.
A look at the Apple Ring from an ethical point of view
With a company as well-known and prestigious as Apple, you would expect they will consider all ethical boundaries when building their new campus. After the construction of the Apple Ring, the company’s second campus was built in Cupertino, California, with around 175 acres of land, 2.8 million of the main building, and the main office worth $4.17 billion. There were a lot of opinions and criticism on how the new building failed the consideration of many ethical issues and did not benefit the city of Cupertino as much as it promised it would. Continue reading this article to discover how Apple disappointed the locals and other parties of Cupertino and what future businesses should avoid when constructing or opening up a new campus, building, or facility.
Downfall of Outsourcing
Around 90% of the employees working in the Apple ring were outsourced and not from the area. Therefore, they had to commute using different means of transportation, which increased traffic and pollution and harmed the environment. Instead, the company should have hired the local population, which would have killed two birds with one stone. First, it would have decreased the number of people and given the local economy of Cupertino a chance to strive by providing more job opportunities.
Zoning Laws
Moreover, many criticize Apple’s benefits to the city of Cupertino as being a little stingy compared to the company, which has $250 billion in cash. Some say Apple did not do much to help or improve the Bay Area city of Cupertino and ended up building a work campus that only exacerbated the ongoing problem of transportation, housing, and economics in suburban areas. Apple overstates the supposed benefits and development of the Apple ring, but it is only an unstimulating sprawl of an idea taking up too much potential land. They mention that more housing and residents will only cost more as the city will have to build schools and hospitals to accommodate the needs of the increased population. In addition, many locals argue that remodeling an old building in the middle of the city would have been better for Cupertino’s economy than taking away precious land that could have been used for other advantageous projects. Therefore, by properly following the zoning laws, Apple could have avoided all these problems stated above, and the locals of Cupertino blamed the Apple Ring for increasing the noise level, car traffic, parking, air quality, and wasting potential land.
Shareholder Value Criticism
Another factor many people had a problem with, specifically shareholders, was how the building was unnecessarily extravagant. Due to building one of the most high-tech and fancy buildings, Apple could not issue more corporate dividends, which upset the shareholders. This was unethical of Apple as they did not consider their implicit contract with the shareholders and disappointed them. It is essential for a shareholder to feel valued, secure, and confident in a company. Especially when it’s a billion-dollar organization such as Apple, you wouldn’t think maximizing shareholder value would be an issue or struggle.
Therefore, although The Apple Ring is known as one of the most state-of-the-art campuses ever to be built, many critics believe that many decisions were unethical and should be avoided by future organizations.
Apple Ring from an Ethical Point of View – In conclusion
From an ethical perspective, the Apple Ring, or Apple Park, raises essential considerations regarding environmental sustainability, corporate responsibility, and community impact. Designed with a focus on eco-friendly architecture, Apple Park incorporates renewable energy sources, extensive green spaces, and innovative water and waste management systems. However, some critics question the significant resources dedicated to creating such a lavish headquarters, especially given the broader global issues of wealth inequality and housing shortages in the Bay Area. Additionally, Apple’s influence on local infrastructure, real estate, and traffic raises ethical concerns about its impact on the surrounding community. The Apple Ring embodies Apple’s commitment to innovation and sustainability, yet it also highlights ongoing debates about the role of large corporations in addressing community needs and social responsibility.
References:
- FindLaw. (2018, February 16). Commercial zoning. (URL)
- Howarth, D. (2017). Apple Park New Campus Foster Partners Sucks Wired Magazine Review. (URL)
- Inside ApplePark. (2021). (URL)
- Winters, D. (2017). If You Care About Cities, Apple’s New Campus Sucks. (URL)
This article is written by:
This article is written and edited by in-house writers and editors. Knowledge Netizen editorial team is committed to providing accurate and informative content. You can cite our articles under the author name "NetizenMe"
