Skip to next paragraph 
This article is part of our expanded Bay Area coverage.
The Bay Area Blog features coverage of public affairs, commerce, culture and lifestyles in the region. We invite your comments at bayarea@nytimes.com.
Go to the Bay Area Blog » In a sense, the end result is the same mix of plans, dreams and frustration, of civic-corporate boosterism and local concern about the giant in their midst that Henry Ford might have found familiar in Dearborn, Mich., a century ago. Indeed, a hint of friction crept into the Google-Mountain View union this month as the company moved to safeguard its option to expand along the city’s northern edge near the shores of San Francisco Bay.
But if the debate over the company’s physical footprint harks back to traditional company-town tensions, that should not obscure that this new version of the old model has a modern accent.
For Google, Mountain View is part home, part developable land and part beta test for the company. For the city, Google is part economic engine, part benefactor and a soon-to-be real-estate developer with an opportunistic eye for underused assets — like, say the landing strip at Moffett Field, a former Navy air station, where jets of Google executives now come and go.
Perhaps uniquely, Google is also casting itself as a partner with NASA, now the proprietor of Moffett Field. This partnership is making Mountain View a stop along the virtual route to Mars and the real route to the Moon.
“It’s a cool anomaly because the company-town tradition had basically died in the U.S.,” said Jerry Davis, a professor at the University of Michigan, who has written about the ties between companies and cities. “It’s interesting to see Google put their touches on the idea.”
Historically, company towns have grown up around organizations with large manufacturing operations that can support thousands of local workers. To attract top executives to often less-than-ideal locales, the companies donated large sums to cultural institutions.
“The main reason Ford put money into the Detroit Symphony Orchestra is to make it plausible to recruit executives to Detroit,” Professor Davis said. “It was a human-resources move as much as it was philanthropic.”
But the technology companies that grew amid the striking scenery and balmy weather of the Bay Area have not felt the same imperative. As they grew, they turned inward, putting their resources into employee perks like stock options and free lunches.
“Generally speaking, the high-tech companies in Silicon Valley are not as engaged in contributing to their local communities,” said Larry Stone, the Santa Clara County tax assessor.
But it has been somewhat different in Mountain View, largely because of Google’s rapid growth. The company now employs 20,000 people worldwide, about half in the Bay Area, and the city’s tax base has grown in tandem with the company.
In 2005, Google ranked 21st on a list compiled by county officials that measured the taxable value of local businesses’ property.
In 2009, Google rose to the third spot, trailing Cisco Systems, in San Jose, and Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale. Over that period, the assessed value of its property has surged 481 percent to $739 million.
Last year, as the recession deepened, the assessed value of land in Mountain View grew 6.2 percent, the highest rate in the county. “This is almost exclusively because of Google,” Mr. Stone said. Countywide growth was two-tenths of 1 percent.
Ronit Bryant, the mayor of Mountain View, said of Google, “They bring in a considerable amount of money that goes into the general fund.”
Google also put Mountain View on the international map by building a citywide free wireless service. It recently announced a plan to create similar networks in other cities.
But Mountain View and the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field have also been good to Google. There is the airstrip. In addition, Google has leased excess space at local public schools, like Theuerkauf Elementary School, for its subsidized day-care centers.
The most controversial Google plan so far is its possible expansion into the North Bayshore area, including residential towers of up to five stories. These would increase population density, and possibly traffic, in an area that has little of either. The proposal’s viability, in turn, rests in part on the long-term planning decisions now before the City Council.
After some members of the Council expressed concern last week, Google pushed back. In a Feb. 11 letter to the city manager, Google’s vice president for real estate wrote, “We would encourage you to provide opportunities for the North Bayshore area to continue to be the center of sustainable development for Google’s HQ campus.”
Reaction from city residents in the comment section of the local newspaper, The Mountain View Voice, fell into two camps. A comment under the name “a nony mouse” said: “Google is funding Mtn View police and firemen and schools and free internet. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”
But another commenter calling himself “Thom, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood,” wrote: “This isn’t Google View, this is Mountain View. I urge the members of the council to tell Google we are not going to bend to their threats.”
The North Bayshore development is one of two Google is considering; the other, further along, is for a residential, office and retail mix on federal, NASA Ames, land nearby. Construction is set to begin by 2013.
The complex is a sign of Google’s attitude to Mountain View.
In an interview, David Radcliffe, the Google vice president for real estate, said, “This is our headquarters, and we are committed here for the long term.”
Sean Safford, a professor who studies organizations and markets at the University of Chicago, noted that Google was replicating traditional company-town practices by placing housing for its employees near its headquarters.
“It will be so interesting to see how much of their human resources strategy is about creating a community feeling that goes beyond the offices,” Mr. Safford said. “Sometimes when you’re competing for workers and prominence, there’s a need to stick your chest out and say, ‘We’re the big dogs in town.’ ”
The NASA campus also highlights some of Google’s unconventional pursuits.
Where old-line companies directed their investments toward the arts, Google has aimed its millions at space. Every year, it earmarks money to support collaborations with NASA. One result has been Google Mars, which provides people with access to photos and information about the planet.
In addition, Google has put up $30 million for a contest to land a robot on the Moon by 2014.
“These technology entrepreneurs grew up watching ‘Star Trek’ and ‘Star Wars,’ and they want to make this real,” said S. Pete Worden, the director of NASA Ames.
NASA has bet that other like-minded companies will come to Ames. The central idea is synergy between technology companies and NASA researchers as both delve into areas like energy, biotechnology and aeronautics.
For Mr. Worden, the work done with Google, as well as projects with Microsoft and Cisco, represents a new chapter in the way that governments and companies work together, particularly if economic opportunities around space exploration emerge.
“Google was the pathfinder,” Mr. Worden said. “But there will be more companies on this land.”
No comments:
Post a Comment