Hacker News Reader

Comment by hga | Hacker News Reader

I think I should point out that this is traditionally a sign of a peak of a company, sometimes called the Edifice Complex.

View on HN

It does seem not unusual that, at their peak, technology companies embark on a project that will eventually be their tomb. However, closer inspection reveals that this is really just survivor bias, as many companies continue on post tomb building. Apple built the Infinite Loop campus, Sun built its Menlo Park campus but really didn't "die" until after the Agnews complex was being built.

Interestingly for me, they are getting bigger and bigger. The space ship complex for Apple (and this proposed Google setup) are both quite large. So harder to lease out as a unit to the next company that comes along.

Still, if you have the extra cash laying about companies like IBM have proven that investing in real estate is a good hedge against the future. They have several really beautiful campuses.

I think Atari had plans for such a building, they were scattered all over the valley and wanted to consolidate. But they got distracted by a couple buyouts and ended up dying before they could do it.

it's almost like when SGI built that big hq in mountain view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googleplex

This is the first time Google is developing an office complex from scratch and it's somehow "Edifice Complex"?

Mind you this is a $400 billion company.

You can object to it if you want, but it's a well known phenomena - starting to build buildings is often a bad sign for the company's long-term future prospects. And since we're talking about companies peaking, the size of the company isn't particularly relevant.

It is, of course, not a universal law, but lavish new office spaces are one of those things that don't seem to go well.

> it's a well known phenomena

Do you have any data to back it up or did you just made it up?

http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-200...

Or from a16z:

"Pouring huge money into overly glorious new headquarters — “The Edifice Complex” — then repeating two years later. There’s also a danger in signaling to employees “we’ve made it, we’re amazing” (and while everyone hates the cramped but collaborative space when they’re in it, they miss it terribly after the move)."

That's anecdote, not data. Having 10 examples doesn't validate your point.

And for the a16z stuff you quoted, the first paragraph says "10 ways to damage your fast-growing tech startup".

Thanks for classifying Google as a fast-growing tech startup, but I think the startup phase was over a long time ago.

You had asked for data that it was a well-known phenomena. A major business publication and a well-known VC firm both referring to it by name is decent data for it being well-known, and the best you're going to get without paying me.

>but it's a well known phenomena

I'm a bit dubious when the top google link of this well known phenomenon is an urban dictionary definition.

That says more about you than the term, it's not top in an incog search.

(Not OP) I just tried - it's top in an incognito search as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's geolocation-based.

Data centers are buildings. They've built a bunch of those successfully.

I think the original term comes from a headquarters where the company leaders want to express themselves. "Utility" buildings are pretty common and dictated by function for the most part.

This happens to governments when they decide to build the "New City Hall". It generally goes really badly.

The BI article [1] you linked to only shows a correlation between a handful of companies' failure and their new buildings. They failed because of other factors; new buildings only accelerated their downfall.

If this is the norm we wouldn't even have Google (and FB, Apple, Microsoft, Apple, etc) campuses today.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/poorly-timed-headquarters-200...

I think perhaps starting to build buildings is a sign of a company's maturity, and that separately many companies that achieve this maturity end up struggling to maintain the focus they enjoyed during their growth.

So maybe it is that big successful companies tend to build buildings, and that success sometimes is the downfall of an innovative company.

Exactly. I at least view this phenomena as more likely signaling a peak than a downfall.

It's often a sign that some of the people at the top believe they have nothing better to do than immerse themselves in creating a special building. They are by definition not as focused on the company's business. If this is happening with Google, it doesn't signal doom, but, as you say, a degree of maturity.

"Exactly. I at least view this phenomena as more likely signaling a peak than a downfall." - You do realize that a "peak" inherently implies a decline, yes?

Yes, but peak does not necessarily equal "downfall", it could be the start of a plateau, which can be very consequential, especially for a previously high growth tech company. I'm also using it loosely, it could also, after a while, be followed by another growth period. Or a decline could be slow, Google's business isn't necessarily of the sort where a fall would be quick.

It's at least the second time they've announced something, since they announced a £650M / $1G building in London in 2013¹.

But it seems that's stalled.²

¹ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/googles-uk-b...

² http://www.techworld.com/news/startups/google-rent-offices-a...

A lot of is to work around the limitations imposed - like not negatively impacting the habitat of burrowing owls. So it may just be a really weird solution for a series of really weird problems.

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!¹

         ¹not speaking for my king^H^H^H^Hemployer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com